From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,894846be18e92713
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: pontius@twonky.btv.ibm.com (Dale Pontius)
Subject: Re: GNAT R/T Annex and Win95
Date: 1996/04/18
Message-ID: <4l5cn4$1b1c@mdnews.btv.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 148170768
references: <3174712D.71C7@ee.ubc.ca> <4l2sliINNl7m@ra.dept.cs.yale.edu>
organization: IBM Microelectronics Division
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4l2sliINNl7m@ra.dept.cs.yale.edu>,
        griest-tom@cs.yale.edu (Tom Griest) writes:
>
>Right now GNAT/Win32 uses threads, but it is possible in the future
>we will switch to "fibers" which provide even finer control over
>scheduling.
>
I can guess the general idea of fibers. I presume that the GNAT/Win32
runtime takes one Win32 thread and schedules it among fibers. How
much do you expect to gain? How is the Win32 thread switch compared
to other OS thread switches?

Is this done to get faster GNAT thread switching? I preume you know
more about the thread context and can do a more streamlined switch.

Tasks->threads->fibers... Will it stop at the single-strand polymer,
or will scheduling have to make it to the quantum cosmic string
level?

Dale Pontius
(NOT speaking for IBM)