Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!mit-eddie!oxtrap.UUCP!rich
From: rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: parallel gemacs?
Message-ID: <8711101840.AA15300@oxtrap.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Nov-87 13:40:15 EST
Article-I.D.: oxtrap.8711101840.AA15300
Posted: Tue Nov 10 13:40:15 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Nov-87 22:56:23 EST
Sender: daemon@eddie.MIT.EDU
Lines: 16

Can anyone verify the feasability of lack thereof of a parallel
version of gnu-emacs?  What I want to know is, is there a good reason
that eval, map*, etc. cannot be done in parallel?  Like, does the
existing lisp code presume sequential execution?

I could just write it and try it, but if someone can tell me simply
that gnu-emacs-lisp does indeed make such assumptions then I won't
bother.  On the other hand, if there is a guarentee that I am not
aware of...

If eval, map*, etc, cannot, then maybe I will just background garbage
collection.  After all, most of the time N-1 of the processors on my
sequent are idle.  Its also pretty silly that my sun 3/50 runs gnu
faster than my sequent. :-).

rich.