On Tue, Jun 13, 2000 at 04:05:55PM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > Vladimir Marangozov wrote: > > > > M.-A. Lemburg wrote: > > > > > > Ok, then make it default on Linux and Windows... but leave it > > > turned off on other platforms which still have problems > > > such as AIX. > > > > No, I'd suggest turning it on by default everywhere and provide a > > --without-thread configure option if it isn't there yet. > > > > On AIX there are identified compiler/libthread combinations that work > > or don't work. They can be detected though and since the compiler is > > detected earlier, --with-thread can be automatically disabled with a > > notification message about the conflict. > > Ok, let me drop in another argument: > > How you are going to sell the performance loss due to > enabled thread support even when a script doesn't > need threads at all ? > > How about building two versions of the interpreter per default: > one with threads enabled and one without threads ? Hey, the sky is falling, too. If people are concerned with the performance and want to eek that gain out, then they can build with --without-threads Not a problem. "Gee. My operating system is too slow because it deals with all these process and threads. Why can't I have a single-process OS like DOS? It runs *so* much faster." :-) -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4