On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:35 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>wrote:

> On Thu Sep  3 17:09:01 EDT 2009, rvs@sun.com wrote:
> > Anything can be done using regular C and threads. The trick here
> > is to make everything *scalable* and *painless* enough so that
> > mere mortals can start benefiting from parallelism in their code.
> >
> > The other trick here is to find a model that makes things *natural*, and
> > that means practically no explicit locking, less shared state, etc.
> >
> > The search for the model is meaningless unless it is used for
> > solving *practical* challenges. In that respect, one of my
> > favorite article is how implementation of a chess engine
> > influenced Cilk framework (which almost has the notion of a "block")
> >    http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/icca99.pdf
> >
> > Read it, I don't think we can be on the same page (and escape the
> > armchair philosophy trap) unless we are talking about practical
> > applications of the framework.
> >
> > Look at the chess example -- can the same be done with pure C? Sure!
> > Did Cilk make it less painful? Absolutely!
>
> my question was, what's naming your function pointers
> or not got to do with locking?  i'm asking about the language
> construct, not the library er i mean "framework" and maybe runtime
> that goes with it.
>
>
Maybe if you see the block implementation you wouldn't think it was merely
naming a function pointer?

http://clang.llvm.org/docs/BlockImplementation.txt

Dave


> - erik
>
>