develooper Front page | perl.perl5.porters | Postings from January 2001

Re: Does perl really need to use sigsetjmp? (18% performance hit)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
Jarkko Hietaniemi
January 21, 2001 09:45
Re: Does perl really need to use sigsetjmp? (18% performance hit)
Message ID:
On Sun, Jan 21, 2001 at 05:02:21PM +0000, Alan Burlison wrote:
> Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > Hangon. Is this perl6 now? Which list should it get to?
> > 
> > I was meaning it more as an analogy, for stuff that shouldn't leak if
> > an eval dies. But it's not a great one, as you can eval inside an eval.
> > And only perl internals stuff. I was meaning that this was "implementation"
> > and perl scripts don't get to see it.
> Kinda both.  Perl5 threads are irredeemably broken, and IMHO should be
> excised from the source as soon as possible - leaving them in only gives

Otherwise a nice idea but the source has been rather irredeemably
ingrained in to the code.  Undoing it would be more work than gain,
I think.  Think of it as a limp with which we must live.

> As for perl6, there has been discussion of using the same sort of
> brokenness there too.  The only model that seems to make sense to me is
> the interpreter per thread model, with new language syntax for shared
> state, such as variables visible to more than one interpreter.  One

Yes, yes, yes.

> advantage of the vtbl model being suggested is such things become much
> easier to do.
> Alan Burlison

$jhi++; #
        # There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
        # It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen

Thread Previous | Thread Next Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at | Group listing | About