Changeset 20ffcf3 for doc/proposals/concurrency/text/parallelism.tex

Timestamp:

Nov 13, 2017, 10:45:32 AM (6 years ago)

Author:

Thierry Delisle <tdelisle@…>

Branches:

ADT, aaron-thesis, arm-eh, cleanup-dtors, deferred_resn, demangler, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, new-env, no_list, persistent-indexer, pthread-emulation, qualifiedEnum, resolv-new, with_gc

Children:

b3ffb61

Parents:

6d2386e

Message:

Commit after new draft

File:

• doc/proposals/concurrency/text/parallelism.tex (modified) (1 diff)

doc/proposals/concurrency/text/parallelism.tex

@@ -15 +15 @@
 Examples of languages that support \glspl{uthread} are Erlang~\cite{Erlang} and \uC~\cite{uC++book}.
 
-\subsection{Fibers : user-level threads without preemption}
+\subsection{Fibers : user-level threads without preemption} \label{fibers}
 A popular varient of \glspl{uthread} is what is often refered to as \glspl{fiber}. However, \glspl{fiber} do not present meaningful semantical differences with \glspl{uthread}. The significant difference between \glspl{uthread} and \glspl{fiber} is the lack of \gls{preemption} in the later one. Advocates of \glspl{fiber} list their high performance and ease of implementation as majors strenghts of \glspl{fiber} but the performance difference between \glspl{uthread} and \glspl{fiber} is controversial, and the ease of implementation, while true, is a weak argument in the context of language design. Therefore this proposal largely ignores fibers.