|[5 earlier articles]|
|Re: thread static Roger@natron.demon.co.uk (Roger Barnett) (1995-08-21)|
|Re: thread static email@example.com (1995-08-21)|
|Re: thread static firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-08-22)|
|Re: thread static email@example.com (1995-08-22)|
|Re: thread static firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-08-24)|
|Re: thread static email@example.com (Michael Meissner) (1995-08-24)|
|Re: thread static firstname.lastname@example.org (Stefan Monnier) (1995-08-28)|
|Re: thread static email@example.com (1995-08-28)|
|From:||Stefan Monnier <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Organization:||Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne|
|Date:||Mon, 28 Aug 1995 08:03:52 GMT|
Erik Corry <email@example.com> wrote:
] But they could perhaps cache the stacks. When you destroy a thread, you
] keep the extensible stack, and you can use it for future threads without
] having to go to the kernel to get a new one. So it's quite possible to
] make a lightweight thread without going to the kernel.
This is correct and makes my claims even more true (my claim was that
forcing to go through the kernel (because of the paging tricks) for
context switches and thread creation/destruction was a bad idea).
] To the good objections to thread static variables that you mentioned
Please reread my message: it didn't object anything to thread-static
variables, it objected against one specific way to implement them.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.