Re: [Caml-list] How INRIA people envision OCaml's parallel future?

[Jonathan_T_Bryant <jtbryant@valdosta.edu>]

Well, one of the easiest ways is to extend the Unix library to be able
to include the shared memory and semaphores system calls (shmget, shmat,
shmctl, shmdt, semget, semctl, and a couple of others, too).  That way
heavyweight processes could simulate threads (they CAN take advantage of
multiple processors but can also share data.  That would be the easiest
way to "solve" (if only partially) the problem.

--Jonathan

On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 14:50 +0200, David MENTRE wrote:
> [ Last email, I swear it! ;-) ]
> 
> Hello,
> 
> 2005/6/24, David MENTRE <david.mentre@gmail.com>:
> > Anyway, INRIA people have already worked on those issues and had
> > proposals. It is just that they feel it was not worth the trouble, *at
> > that time*:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=doligez+parallel+GC+caml-list&hl=fr&lr=&selm=fa.dlqoshv.1a66ho7%40ifi.uio.no&rnum=2
> 
> >From private and public emails, it appears that I have fed an old troll. 
> 
> My intent is not to start another thread about GC and threading. My
> intent is to know how, in a short future, I could efficiently use a
> moderately SMP machine by writing pure OCaml code.
> 
> It could be with typed channels between unix processes, by modifying
> the GC, by using concurrent constructs within the language, ... I
> don't know so this is why I'm asking it here.
> 
> Yours,
> d.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs