| Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>: Dec 18 07:45AM -0800 > compiler, yet had an operating system that offered a memory manager > with GC? And, ostensibly, was a multitasking OS (given that you are > arguing the programs had an overall smaller memory footprint). There was no operating system in the conventional sense of the term. Garbage collection was part of the VM underlying the OOP environment. Multitasking was done in and by the OOP environment itself, with "stack frames" being objects, and so could be queued for later resumption, switched between, etc. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 17 10:49PM -0800 On 12/17/2021 2:20 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote: > "This article details the atomic operations and C++11 memory barriers > and the assembler instructions generated by it on x86_64 CPUs." > Wow, that is detailed. Need to read it, however, for some reason, it seems like distributed spinlocks... I remember an implementation of something called an MLock, but I cannot find the damn paper right now! Basically each thread that needed to wait would not interfere with other threads wrt false sharing. Each thread would wait on its own cache line. |
| "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>: Dec 17 11:01PM -0800 On 12/17/2021 10:49 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > but I cannot find the damn paper right now! Basically each thread that > needed to wait would not interfere with other threads wrt false sharing. > Each thread would wait on its own cache line. Iirc, this just might be the paper: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.48.6490 https://groups.google.com/g/comp.arch/c/aLVoxdQdRac/m/VFodX7eRPVcJ |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment