[squeak-dev] New Cog VMs available

Blake McBride blake at mcbride.name
Mon Dec 3 17:03:38 UTC 2012


On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Bob Arning <arning315 at comcast.net> wrote:

>
> On 12/3/12 11:42 AM, Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>>   In true reentrancy each recursive call would essentially get their own
>>> VM.
>>> >
>>> >They could, but what's in the VM that they really need a separate copy
>>> of?
>>>
>> It's not the VM, it's the shared state of the image that would cause a
>> problem (if anything did). I would think, at least.
>>
> If that were the case, then he would need not only his own VM, but his own
> image. If these calls from C are expecting a virgin image with the ability
> to execute arbitrary smalltalk code and never see anybody else's data, then
> a separate image (or at leat super sandbox) would seem a requirement. OTOH,
> if he wanted to make use of some BitBlt functions, e.g., then he could ship
> a bitmap to Squeak, request some transformation and receive a new bitmap in
> return. In this case, one Vm and one image would seem to do nicely.
>


Yes, separate instance of the image.  It would be self-managed for free of
the global variables in the VM kernel were eliminated.  A simple clone
already loaded image function could make this work relatively fast.



>
> Cheers,
> Bob
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20121203/0f3040b3/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list