Re: stackless implementation (was Re: New stackless proposal)

Christian Tismer wrote:

>  From the above, isn't it easy to deduce that you are talking of C
> stacks, especially if there is a "real switch". That's how it came.

It is my fault.  I should define what I meant by a real stack.  I was being
defensive of my code.

>> How does your stackless implement the multiple tasklets?  Does it
>> allow C extensions in a tasklet?
>
> Yes, sure. It doesn't like it very much, things become slower,
> assembly is involved, but it works.
> If this is not necessary, everything is done by stack avoidance,
> no assembly.

Hmmm.  I have a big problem.  I keep forgetting that my implementation of
Thread does not allow C extensions. People will want C extensions in their
co-routines.  Having C extensions only allowed in one special main Thread is
very bad.  It would be very non-symmetric.

Does your assembly only work on X86 machines?  I may ask to steal your
assembly code.