From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Content-type: text/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Fri,  4 Sep 2009 09:50:22 -0700
From: Roman Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <1d238a8aeb5c897a9b90fa97c4a29065@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <90D635F7-538D-422A-9E1A-C0D09775706C@sun.com>
References: <1d238a8aeb5c897a9b90fa97c4a29065@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] "Blocks" in C
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 64dc5e14-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sep 4, 2009, at 5:14 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> But this has no more to do with parallelism than any other
>> feature of C. If you used __block vars in a block, you'd
>> still need to lock them when the block is called from
>> different threads.
>
> that's a lot worse than a function pointer.  with
> a function pointer your going to get unique space
> on the stack for each invocation.

Erik, you're usually pretty pedantic and factual. This
post is neither.

Thanks,
Roman.