From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 336B7BCAF for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:02:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j5BE2C05020771 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:02:12 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA19583 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:02:11 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from wetware.wetware.com (wetware.wetware.com [209.218.58.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j5BE2AVh013252 for ; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 16:02:11 +0200 Received: from [69.12.155.90] (helo=[10.0.1.5]) by wetware.wetware.com with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Dh6Yo-00041K-P9; Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:02:06 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v622) In-Reply-To: <42AA96CB.2050706@univ-savoie.fr> References: <1118426167.17936.32.camel@chunky.valdosta.edu> <42AA96CB.2050706@univ-savoie.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Message-Id: <55fb30900b308b38d2724c53008f7c91@wetware.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: james woodyatt Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Threads Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 07:02:05 -0700 To: ocaml_beginners@yahoo.com, The Caml Trade X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.622) X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 42AAEEE4.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 42AAEEE2.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 caml-list:01 threads:01 christophe:01 raffalli:01 threads:01 runtime:01 posix:01 woodyatt:01 jhw:01 wetware:01 2005,:98 46,:98 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On 11 Jun 2005, at 00:46, Christophe Raffalli wrote: > > No there is a global mutex for caml thread. The only thing you can do=20= > is have one Caml thread and many C threads running in the same time. > > This starts really to be an annoying limitation of the Caml runtime=20 > now that you can have easily two dual core processors in one machine=20= > ... (means four CPU) Not for me it isn't-- I gave up cooperative scheduling with Mac OS 9. Now, when I want concurrent, pre=EBmptive multiprocessing, I call = fork(2)=20 [and often exec(2)], like Nature intended. I don't know why you folks=20= on Win32 platforms continue to put up with such abominable support for=20= POSIX interfaces. --=20 j h woodyatt that's my village calling... no doubt, they want their idiot back.