Are we reading the same document?
There is what is contained in the PPD; and there is what is contained in the source files.
For example: Here are a couple of comment blocks drawn from the latest Parrot sources:
Create a local copy of the PMC if necessary. (No copy is made if it is marked shared.) This includes workarounds for Parrot_clone() not doing the Right Thing with subroutines (specifically, code segments aren't preserved and it is difficult to do so as long as Parrot_clone() depends on freezing).
Fixup a PMC to be sharable. Right now, reassigns the vtable to one owned by some master interpreter, so the PMC can be safely reused after thread death. In the future the PMC returned might be different than the one passed, e.g., if we need to reallocate the PMC in a different interpreter.
How do you interpret those?
My interpretation is that
That is, as best as I can divine, repeating all the mistakes of the Perl 5 implementation.
To understand the fundamental (and I do not use that word lightly here) importance of reentrancy to threading, read some wisdom from people who have done it. Pay particular attention to section 12.3.
In reply to Re^2: Slow evolution of Perl = Perl is a closed Word (NQP, parrot concurrency == Oh dear.)
by BrowserUk
in thread Slow evolution of Perl = Perl is a closed Word
by Anonymous Monk
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |