[Help-smalltalk] Re: [feature] Add SMP support to VM

[Robin Redeker]

Issue status update for 
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/project/issue/98
Post a follow up: 
http://smalltalk.gnu.org/project/comments/add/98

Project:      GNU Smalltalk
Version:      <none>
Component:    VM
Category:     feature requests
Priority:     normal
Assigned to:  Unassigned
Reported by:  sblinn
Updated by:   elmex
Status:       active

Here are some of my mostly random thoughts about this:

Yes, this seems to be highly non-trivial to me.
But in times of multi-core CPUs popping up everywhere
(even under my desk), it would certainly make GNU 
smalltalk even more interesting.

But I guess there will be big issues with the GC
and the I/O subsystem.

I also wonder how the API would look like on the 
smalltalk side. Can I specify which thread is a
"real" thread? What kind of locking can I use?

Will the VM crash on me when I write to an object
at the same time? Are there alternatives?

My opinion is that locking and synchronizing should
be up to the Programmer. Thread programming and 
synchronization is a very complicated thing and there
is afaik no easy way out. Let the programmer decide 
wheter he needs real threads and when he needs 
synchronization.

I just wanted to say that IF I get real threads somehow
in smalltalk, I want to control which [] fork results
in a real and which in a pseudo-thread. And that
if I mutate an object in two "real" threads at the same
time (without locking) I deserve a segfault and core dump
or corrupted data.