Re: more bugs in openmcl

Note that beyond "mere" performance implications and the portability
of this particular application, fork() allows process insulation in a
way that makes the erlang model of robust massive concurrency possible
(although admittedly with a coarser grain -- we ain't gonna get 10000
threads with fork -- but we could conceivably combine fork and
threads, because we don't need insulation for every thread, only for
sensible groups of threads).

[ Fran=E7ois-Ren=E9 =D0VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.tu=
nes.org ]
If you don't like yourself, you *can't* like other people.
        -- Robert Heinlein, "Time Enough For Love"


On 08/10/2007, Far=E9 <[email protected]> wrote:
> Oh, additionally, in SBCL, even in the single-threaded case, some
> "magic cleanup" is done in the child after a fork. Could such cleanup
> be conceivably done in the case of OpenMCL, that would make forking
> safe?
>
> [ Fran=E7ois-Ren=E9 =D0VB Rideau | Reflection&Cybernethics | http://fare.=
tunes.org ]
> Hi! I'm a signature virus. Copy me into your sig file and help me spread!