Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why?

Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
14 May 2005 16:57:59 -0400

          From comp.compilers
Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? clearm@comcast.net (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? haberg@math.su.se (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? Marko.Makela@HUT.FI (Marko =?ISO-8859-1?Q?M=E4kel=E4?=) (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? marcov@stack.nl (Marco van de Voort) (2005-05-14)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? gah@ugcs.caltech.edu (glen herrmannsfeldt) (2005-05-15)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? gene@abhost.us (Gene Wirchenko) (2005-05-15)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-15)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? gneuner2@comcast.net (George Neuner) (2005-05-16)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk (2005-05-16)
Re: The C Stack in interpreters - why? scooter.phd@gmail.com (scooter.phd@gmail.com) (2005-05-18)
| List of all articles for this month |
From: Marco van de Voort <marcov@stack.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 14 May 2005 16:57:59 -0400
Organization: Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
References: 05-05-072 05-05-079 05-05-089
Keywords: architecture
Posted-Date: 14 May 2005 16:57:59 EDT

On 2005-05-14, Hans Aberg <haberg@math.su.se> wrote:
> "stackless" (non-threaded) engine.


> [I don't think any current version of BSD still is built on Mach, but
> they all have thread support in the kernel. -John]


Afaik BSD has always been monolithical, but is often used in
experiments due to its liberal license. This was done in NeXT (which
later morphed into OSX) they used a Mach kernel and complemented the
rest with BSD code.


Recent versions (FreeBSD 5.x) also feature m:n scheduling and fine
grained locking in the kernel.
[In private mail, Hans and I agreed that OS X has a Mach 3 kernel underneath
the FreeBSD part. -John]


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.