Re: Re: stackless implementation (was Re: New stacklessproposal)
Christian Tismer <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.lang.prothon.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Mark Hahn wrote: >>From: Christian Tismer > > >>>If "stack pooled" can do everything and is fasted and smallest why >>>offer anything else? Is there no disadvantage at all? Aaah! Sorry, I did a wrong classification. Copy & paste... "Stack pooled" is of course not low memory. > What is the "cost" of extra stacks? Is it memory or speed? As long as > it is less memory than OS and faster than OS then it is justified. No, it is much memory, as much as a minimum C stack. I think 64 k would fit. ... > If it is slower that the pure interpreter on some platforms but supports > C extensions, I may still decide to go with only that solution. Having > a combination solution where one choice doesn't support C extensions is > very non-orthogonal and messy, especially if it is only for the benefit > of a small part of the user base. No no, the pool thing is for speed only, and only if it really pays off. ... > If there is C stuff on the stacks, then don't they have to be > arbitrarily big because we cannot predict how big they need to be? Or > do you still have one big OS stack that they initialize on and then you > copy only what the C function uses over to the multiple stacks? No, the latter is what I do now. Sorry for being so unspecific. The pool thing is just if you want to squeeze the last snot of speed out of your interpreter. ciao - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[email protected]> Mission Impossible 5oftware : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9a : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 89 09 53 34 home +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/