From: olk on
Pavel A. schrieb:
> Yes, SEH places special markers in the stack.
> You've asked for a trouble and got it.
> -- pa

What are those markers?
From: olk on
Pavel A. schrieb:
> Yes, SEH places special markers in the stack.
> You've asked for a trouble and got it.
> -- pa

What are those markers?
From: olk on
m schrieb:
> I am curious why you think that it is a good idea to build this?

Ofcourse - I got my lib working on several UNIX systems. Only Windows
makes it difficult.

It
> will be 1) hard;

probably

2) fragile and is probably, like fibers, mostly useless.

WIN32 Fibers are uselees because not migrateable between threads.
The lib I try to create provides 'continuations'/'coroutines' for C++
(similiar to features of GO, Python -> call/cc).
From: olk on
m schrieb:
> I am curious why you think that it is a good idea to build this?

Ofcourse - I got my lib working on several UNIX systems. Only Windows
makes it difficult.

It
> will be 1) hard;

probably

2) fragile and is probably, like fibers, mostly useless.

WIN32 Fibers are uselees because not migrateable between threads.
The lib I try to create provides 'continuations'/'coroutines' for C++
(similiar to features of GO, Python -> call/cc).
From: Leo Davidson on
On Apr 29, 5:24 am, olk <oliver.kowa...(a)gmx.de> wrote:


> WIN32 Fibers are uselees because not migrateable between threads.

I thought Win32 fibers were thread agnostic?

e.g. http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2010/02/25/9969014.aspx

AFAIK the fibers themselves can move between threads. The things you
may want to run *on* fibers may have thread affinity and cause
problems (e.g. apartment threaded COM objects) but you'd have those
problems with any mechanism which moved code calling those things
between threads.

Can't say that I've ever used fibers, since they only make sense to a
very tiny niche which I've never found myself in, but that's my
understanding of them.