🚀 go-pugleaf

Jan Walter (centurion@infomatch.com) wrote:
: lotu@wam.umd.edu (Arcadio Alivio Sincero) writes:
[snip]
: >Are M2's concurrent processes and threads the same thing or are they
: >different?
: >
: >Arcadio
[snip]
: not sure about how they implemented this in OS/2 though, nor am I familiar
: how Gardens Point implemented their co-routine structure in their 32 bit OS/2
: compiler.  I have hunch though that their co-routines are now asynchronous,
: with their TRANSFER routine coming down to the OS/2 system call of DosSleep()
: to make the thread yield it's CPU time slice. The other possibility is that
: their RTL adds another thread or something like this to allow threads to run
: in a synchronous fashion. Anyone have the source to the GPM system module?

Not so - though I think your idea has some merit. Currently GPM implements
synchronous co-routines on all supported platforms. All co-routines run in
the same thread and TRANSFER() is just a stack swap.  This is not the same
as multi-threading, but can be a useful paradigm in fetch --> process type
applications. GPM OS/2 programs can use multiple threads just like anybody
else, it just isn't built in.
 
We have toyed with the concept of asynchronous co-routines (multi-threading),
but absence of an equivalent to C's volatile marker makes this problematic.
It is probably possible for the compiler with sufficient effort to work this
out for itself.  Synchronous co-routines can introduce hidden aliases, but at
least the language semantics are preserved for each co-routine individually.

Jeff.
---
Jeffrey Ledermann           lederman@dstc.qut.edu.au
                            http://www.dstc.qut.edu.au/~lederman/

          _--_|\            Faculty of Information Technology
         /      QUT         Queensland University of Technology
         \_.--._/           Box 2434  Brisbane 4001  AUSTRALIA 
               v            Ph: +61 7 3864 5337  Fax: +61 7 3864 1282