From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA03716; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:12:41 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id LAA03820 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:12:40 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id g919Cc507641; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from xleroy@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id LAA03775; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:12:38 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 11:12:38 +0200 From: Xavier Leroy To: Alessandro Baretta Cc: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl_Gr=FCnewald?= , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Kinds of threads Message-ID: <20021001111238.B3571@pauillac.inria.fr> References: <3D98559D.2060100@baretta.com> <87wup3ecb2.fsf@ketanu.dyndns.org> <3D9953EC.3030604@baretta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <3D9953EC.3030604@baretta.com>; from alex@baretta.com on Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:51:08AM +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk > The docs say that there are two kinds of threads in O'Caml: > Ocaml bytecode threads and POSIX threads, and that it is > possible to select which implementation to use at compiler > build time. Two questions: first, what is the implementation > chosen in the ocaml RPM distribution The RPMs distributed by INRIA use bytecode threads. That might not be true of RPMs and Debian packages built by third parties. > second, why must one choose one implementation at compiler build > time? Why not use a compiler switch such as --posix-threads as opposed > to --caml-threads? Mostly because the idea didn't cross my mind. Offhand, I believe that just playing with the search path would suffice to select between the two implementations. (This needs to be checked, though.) > Caml threads are probably the only way to go on Windows, > since the Win32 API is not POSIX compliant. Amusingly, it's the other way around: bytecode threads use a lot of Unix-specific hacks to get non-blocking I/O, while system threads can easily be built on top of Win32 threads (even though the latter aren't POSIX-compliant). - Xavier Leroy ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners