3 ms·

The same way you'd do it in any runtime? Adopt an adequate representation model of the machine state, and save that state.

• gngeal 13y ago
  Why would I save "a representaion model" when I can simply save the process/thread state?
  • pbsdp 13y ago
    You can't do that in portable C as-is. Watch what happens when you try to restore thread state on a different system thread using an OS that instrisically ties system threads to user threads to thread local variables to the stack. And no, getcontext() and setcontext() aren't portable.
    • gngeal 13y ago
      Why would I care if it's portable or not? I've never understood the mentality of "but it's not portable". If something isn't not portable, you put #+ and #- on top of it. I'd rather go for "straight-forward and performant" than for some abstract code transformations to make it runnable on platforms that almost nobody uses to the detriment of everyone else. LLVM is the lowest common denominator. I'm really not fond of lowest common denominators. (Not to mention the fact that it's bloatware in the first place - it's about twice the size of my favourite compiler, and that's before you add the actual language you're trying to compile.)
      • pbsdp 13y ago
        > Why would I care if it's portable or not? ... Because you literally cannot implement it safely or correctly from the C level on Mac OS X, and any other platform with similar thread/stack/thread-state constraints. Unless that's a platform you think "nobody uses" ...