Hi Andy, > ... > This change fixed the crashes I was seeing, but it slows down port > operations. For an intel chip from a couple years ago the slowdown was > something on the order of 3x, for a tight putchar() loop; for Loongson > it could be as bad as 26x. Mark was unhappy with this.
I agree with Mark here, especially because it slows down port operation even for single threaded code. > But there are situations where this is not enough and there are also > situations where this is not wanted... Indeed. > One possible alternate solution would be to expose ports more to Scheme > and so to make it easier and safer for Scheme to manipulate port data. > This would also make it possible to implement coroutines in Scheme that > yield when IO would block. Not only does it sounds the best approach, but I can't see drawbacks, is there any? I am in favor of this solution: in the end, only the user knows, and the way Mark resumed this in his email is perfect [the last 3 paragraphs] > Or, we could just make stdio/stderr be locked by default, and some other > things not. Seems squirrely to me though. I would not do that, even for these ports, I'd leave them under the user locking responsiblity. Cheers, David
pgpSUU_AcZpHC.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
