Re: Threads and asyncs

[Rob Browning]

Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:

> There are other alternatives, such as radical changes to the execution
> model, so that C stacks aren't used by Scheme at all.  In my personal
> Scheme design, this is the route I've (more or less) decided on.  When
> worked out, and made to work cleanly with primitives written in
> "classic C style" (i.e., freely calling eval or apply), I think it
> winds up converging on more-or-less the same solution as making
> call/cc work by transformation to CPS.

If I understand correctly, one of the reasons guile used the "one (C)
stack with copying" approach was so that call/cc could work properly
with a stack that included intermixed C and scheme function calls
without too much extra magic.  If that's a correct assesment, then how
do you deal with that problem in a stackless approach?

It was also my impression that the call/cc issue, along with an
aversion to having to explicitly deal with GC on the C side (which as
you've pointed out before might be dealt with via preprocessing,
etc.), were the two main things that would make switching to a
stackless approach somewhat controversial or difficult.  Are those the
only two big issues, or are there others?

(fairly interested in the topic ATM)

Thanks

-- 
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org, @linuxdevel.com, and @debian.org
Previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG=1C58 8B2C FB5E 3F64 EA5C  64AE 78FE E5FE F0CB A0AD