From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar@free-expression.org>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Threads and asyncs
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 20:45:26 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <02090420452627.19624@locke.free-expression.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200209050020.RAA18890@morrowfield.regexps.com>
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 19:20, Tom Lord wrote:
> > so that A really contains only frames generated by eval.
>
>
> Why do you need more than one such frame (on a C stack) per Scheme
> thread (without calls out to "non-primitive foreign functions")?
>
> With only one C frame, call/cc can be _really_ fast and I think you
> can go in this direction without trashing eval's performance.
The problem with this is that it requires really fast garbage collection.
Guile's commitment to conservative collection can present a serious
problem in this regard. WIth this proposal, continuations that
do not have a reference after the first execution (i.e. no call/cc)
will be "garbage collected" simply by popping the stack. New
continuations get allocated only and exactly when needed.
Indeed, I think it can the proposal can be completely characterized
as merely an allocation strategy for heap-allocated stack frames,
and nothing more. Now that I think about it, I believe it will do strictly
less work than applying general GC to individual activation records.
(that is, whatever general GC the interpreter is using - I don't make
the claim for this method plus Guile's GC versus unfettered frame
allocation + some other GC; rather this method plus GC versus
unfettered frame allocation plus that same GC).
> But, loosely speaking -- the idea of mixing special stacks for
> classical C with stacks just for Scheme seems to me to be a useful
> one, and, if the interfaces in Guile are suitably cleaned up, a way to
> evolve forward.
>
> It's a drag that the work on Guile debugger support has thwarted
> simply dropping in the faster eval from recent SCMs -- but you could
> leapfrog over that with a stackless eval.
Is all the thread hair in SCM as well?
> > and current C programs can be grandfathered
>
> One language implementor I met made a big fuss over amdhal's law --
> which has the implication for Guile that cleaning up various apis
> (internal and external) should be a big priority.
Ok, I give up, how do the two relate exactly?
> I sort of agree, except that there's a trap there: which is to build
> up abstractions for abstraction sake in areas where, really, there are
> right and wrong answers, with the right answers requiring less than
> fully general abstractions (and, in fact, being somewhat incompatible
> with fully general abstractions).
It's hard to determine the correct answer without knowing
what the question is.
> > Did that make sense? Anyone see a hole in it?
>
> IM*H*O: nothing major. Keep going in that direction. But you're
> nearing the frontier between my experience and my speculation, so I'll
> shut up now.
It's beyond my experience as well, but I think it is correct. After getting
my MCSI's syntax-case working, I might use it to experiment with this idea.
Lynn
* Is "metacircular scheme interpreter" a common enough phrase (in the scheme
community) to be recognizable as an acronym?
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-05 1:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-09-02 20:52 Threads and asyncs Marius Vollmer
2002-09-02 21:24 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-02 21:53 ` Marius Vollmer
[not found] ` <87bs7ggiss.fsf@zagadka.ping.de>
2002-09-02 22:24 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-02 23:51 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-02 23:02 ` Rob Browning
2002-09-02 23:24 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-02 23:36 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-02 23:52 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-03 0:57 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:13 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-03 1:29 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:31 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-03 1:28 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:23 ` RnRS process/history/documentation (was Re: Threads and asyncs) Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-03 1:27 ` Threads and asyncs Rob Browning
2002-09-03 1:45 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-03 1:48 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-04 23:46 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-05 0:20 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 1:45 ` Lynn Winebarger [this message]
2002-09-05 2:38 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 2:30 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-05 2:43 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 2:40 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-05 3:00 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 2:57 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-05 3:23 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 3:14 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-05 4:00 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 3:51 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-05 4:01 ` Tom Lord
2002-09-05 22:03 ` Lynn Winebarger
2002-09-03 1:34 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-09-03 18:06 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-04 0:28 ` NIIBE Yutaka
2002-09-04 18:02 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-09-04 22:30 ` NIIBE Yutaka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=02090420452627.19624@locke.free-expression.org \
--to=owinebar@free-expression.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).