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 BAA12470; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:12:33 +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 BAA12146 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:12:04 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from hci.ucsd.edu (hci.ucsd.edu [132.239.215.210]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f2UNC2X20992 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2001 01:12:02 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from dsf@localhost) by hci.ucsd.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id PAA08660; Fri, 30 Mar 2001 15:12:02 -0800 To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] OCaml, where art thou? References: <001801c0b72d$7fd17a60$210148bf@dylan> <20010330165131.A2384@pauillac.inria.fr> From: David Fox Date: 30 Mar 2001 15:12:02 -0800 In-Reply-To: Xavier Leroy's message of "Fri, 30 Mar 2001 16:51:31 +0200" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.3 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk Xavier Leroy writes: > The "system threads" OCaml library addresses this issue by having one > global master lock that must be acquired in order to run Caml code or > call most run-time facilities, including the allocator and the GC. > This lock is released when calling C from OCaml (allowing other > threads to execute Caml code) and reacquired again before resuming > execution of Caml code. How good or bad an arrangement is this? I've been asked about the threading facilities of ocaml, but I don't know enough to compare and contrast, say, ocaml and Java. ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr. Archives: http://caml.inria.fr