3 ms·
"[...] I expect that on 64-bit platforms the number of concurrent tasks will be comparable to using segmented stacks. On 32-bit platforms, with their limited ad
by akavel 13y ago
"[...] I expect that on 64-bit platforms the number of concurrent tasks will be comparable to using segmented stacks. On 32-bit platforms, with their limited address space, the situation will not be as good, but this is a calculated risk that we can live without the same amount of concurrency there."
I thought that Rust is meant to aim for a "C replacement", but then doesn't the above quote raise some concerns towards ARMs and more embedded targets (e.g. AVRs, ...)? Or maybe my hopes were misguided from the beginning, I start to think now, given multithreading etc.? I'm confused now.
- dbaupp 13y agoEmbedded targets normally don't want segmented stacks anyway, and running hundreds of thousands of threads/tasks (which is what segmented stacks allows) is unlikely to be particularly useful(?). In any case, this ML post is basically saying "Rust is reverting to C-like stack behaviour" (with some checks to handle stack-overflow safely (i.e. memory safety & security), the current implementation just aborts the whole process on stack overflow).