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 SAA25512; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:14:58 +0100 (MET) 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 SAA25500 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:14:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from mg.ihep.su (mg.ihep.su [194.190.161.38]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id gAOHEuX25933 for ; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 18:14:57 +0100 (MET) Received: by mg.ihep.su (Postfix, from userid 65436) id 07AE3B5203; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:14:55 +0300 (MSK) Received: from ontil.ihep.su (ontil.ihep.su [194.190.161.63]) by mg.ihep.su (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D3D8B5133; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:14:53 +0300 (MSK) Received: from localhost (vsl@localhost) by ontil.ihep.su (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gAOHEoS23003; Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:14:50 +0300 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 20:14:50 +0300 (MSK) From: Vitaly Lugovsky To: Lauri Alanko Cc: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Why systhreads? In-Reply-To: <20021123090806.GA633@la.iki.fi> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Sat, 23 Nov 2002, Lauri Alanko wrote: > A simple, fundamental question: why is native-code threading done using > system threads? Why isn't pure user-level scheduling used as with > bytecode? How will you manage SMP scheduling then? May be, smthng like OpenMP will be nice, but it's not so generic as just native threads. ------------------- 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