Re: [glob2-devel] Language demands

[Bo Lorentsen]

Martin Voelkle wrote:

> SGSL now does a mixture of a and b. Normally, there is cooperative
> multitasking, but if the thread runs too long without waiting, it is
> 'preempted' after a number of VM instructions.
>  
The instruction counter limitation !

> It is perfectly possible to avoid this if you get rid of preemption.
>  
Hmm, by having a calle like :

void executeSome( Context &, unsigned nNumOfInstuctions )

The only problem is when the script start calling functions (even TEA 
functions) as this will bemand a preemtion to preserve the stack (I use 
the call stack for TEA calls too). I quess SGSL have the same problem.

> If you handle your stack yourself, you can do the switch without any
> longjump.
>  
I know, all can be done in ASM, but that is not portable at ALL :-)

> This sounds exactly like b, but you're using thread support just to
> emulate longjump. I'm not sure it will be easier do debug than b.
>  
You may be right, other than linux will generate a core dump for the 
offending thread, and thay may be more easy to analyze, but nothing 
beats single threads regarding debugging and profiling !

> No, you're right. Remember that whatever the model you chose, you need
> to be able to save the execution state in a file and resume it.
>  
I am aware of this, my only concern is the form, but I take that when I 
start impl. it :-)

> LUA's license said "Altered source versions must be plainly marked as
> such, and must not be misrepresented as being the original package."
> which is not what you intend to use. See
> http://lua-users.org/wiki/LuaLicense for discussion about this. The main
> problem with such statements is that they are incompatible with the GPL.
>  
I just want to merge the language comment from the LUA licens and LGPL. 
I like everyone to be able to use and expand TEA (types and functions) 
in all kinds of relations, also as static linking to a commercial 
program. But the language core must stay open, and remain under LGPL.

If i LGPL it, glob2 can use and link with it as it/we please, but I will 
not be able to use static linking at my current job, and that is plain 
silly (I could also use dual license, but that is just another ogly idea).

> What you can do is separate the language specification form your
> reference implementation. Protect the specification in some way (but
> keep it free) and put the implementation under a GPL-compatible license.
>  
I don't quite follow your in this ?

> It's good to see someone doing the right things.
>  
Hope I am doing the right thing too :-)

/BL