On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 13:10 -0400, Evan Jones wrote:> On May 13, 2005, at 20:30, Evan Jones wrote: > > should LLVM always be capable of executing multithreaded programs? > > On a related note, I've updated my patch to fix the bug that I found in > it, and I discussed on the mailing list last month. The details can be > found in the bug: > > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=418Cool, thanks.> > This is definitely *not* something that should go in before 1.5 is > released, but I would love to see it integrated shortly after.Okay. Reid -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20050514/620cab3a/attachment.sig>
On May 14, 2005, at 13:28, Reid Spencer wrote:>> This is definitely *not* something that should go in before 1.5 is >> released, but I would love to see it integrated shortly after. > Okay.Now that 1.5 has been released, would it be possible to have some discussion about if linking the JIT with a thread library is the direction that should be taken? I don't see any alternative except having separate "threaded" and "unthreaded" JITs, and requiring the user to know when the different JITs should be used. Thanks, Evan Jones -- Evan Jones http://evanjones.ca/
On Wed, 18 May 2005, Evan Jones wrote:> On May 14, 2005, at 13:28, Reid Spencer wrote: >>> This is definitely *not* something that should go in before 1.5 is >>> released, but I would love to see it integrated shortly after. >> Okay. > > Now that 1.5 has been released, would it be possible to have some discussion > about if linking the JIT with a thread library is the direction that should > be taken? I don't see any alternative except having separate "threaded" and > "unthreaded" JITs, and requiring the user to know when the different JITs > should be used.I think that this is fine. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/