Changeset 62dbb00

Timestamp:

Jun 26, 2019, 4:18:00 PM (5 years ago)

Author:

Peter A. Buhr <pabuhr@…>

Branches:

ADT, arm-eh, ast-experimental, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, pthread-emulation, qualifiedEnum

Children:

d30fdbc

Parents:

08065aa4

Message:

add referees for SP&E submission, start new mail file

Location:

doc/papers/concurrency

Files:

• Paper.tex (modified) (4 diffs)
• mail2 (added)

doc/papers/concurrency/Paper.tex

@@ -2 +2 @@
 
 \articletype{RESEARCH ARTICLE}%
+
+% Referees
+% Doug Lea, dl@cs.oswego.edu, SUNY Oswego
+% Herb Sutter, hsutter@microsoft.com, Microsoft Corp
+% Gor Nishanov, gorn@microsoft.com, Microsoft Corp
+% James Noble, kjx@ecs.vuw.ac.nz, Victoria University of Wellington, School of Engineering and Computer Science
 
 \received{XXXXX}
@@ -312 +318 @@
 As a result, languages like Java, Scala, Objective-C~\cite{obj-c-book}, \CCeleven~\cite{C11}, and C\#~\cite{Csharp} adopt the 1:1 kernel-threading model, with a variety of presentation mechanisms.
 From 2000 onwards, languages like Go~\cite{Go}, Erlang~\cite{Erlang}, Haskell~\cite{Haskell}, D~\cite{D}, and \uC~\cite{uC++,uC++book} have championed the M:N user-threading model, and many user-threading libraries have appeared~\cite{Qthreads,MPC,Marcel}, including putting green threads back into Java~\cite{Quasar}.
-The main argument for user-level threading is that they are lighter weight than kernel threads (locking and context switching do not cross the kernel boundary), so there is less restriction on programming styles that encourage large numbers of threads performing medium work units to facilitate load balancing by the runtime~\cite{Verch12}.
+The main argument for user-level threading is that it is lighter weight than kernel threading (locking and context switching do not cross the kernel boundary), so there is less restriction on programming styles that encourage large numbers of threads performing medium work units to facilitate load balancing by the runtime~\cite{Verch12}.
 As well, user-threading facilitates a simpler concurrency approach using thread objects that leverage sequential patterns versus events with call-backs~\cite{Adya02,vonBehren03}.
 Finally, performant user-threading implementations (both time and space) meet or exceed direct kernel-threading implementations, while achieving the programming advantages of high concurrency levels and safety.
@@ -669 +675 @@
 In contrast, the execution state is large, with one @resume@ and seven @suspend@s.
 Hence, the key benefits of the generator are correctness, safety, and maintenance because the execution states are transcribed directly into the programming language rather than using a table-driven approach.
-Because FSMs can be complex and frequently occur in important domains, direct support of the generator is crucial in a system programming language.
+Because FSMs can be complex and frequently occur in important domains, direct generator support is important in a system programming language.
 
 \begin{figure}
@@ -796 +802 @@
 This semantics is basically a tail-call optimization, which compilers already perform.
 The example shows the assembly code to undo the generator's entry code before the direct jump.
-This assembly code depends on what entry code is generated, specifically if there are local variables, and the level of optimization.
+This assembly code depends on what entry code is generated, specifically if there are local variables and the level of optimization.
 To provide this new calling convention requires a mechanism built into the compiler, which is beyond the scope of \CFA at this time.
 Nevertheless, it is possible to hand generate any symmetric generators for proof of concept and performance testing.