It seems like it would still be useful for *optimizing* the implementation of STM in Haskell; in particular, small transactions seem like a great way to implement lock-free data structures by handling the non-composability of compare-and-swap.

So while you wouldn't implement "atomically a" by "XBEGIN; a; XEND", you might implement atomically by doing the transaction log as we do now, then using XBEGIN/XEND around the commit operation.

  -- ryan

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Austin Seipp <mad.one@gmail.com> wrote:
Duncan Coutts talked a bit about this on Reddit here:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/pfnkx/intel_details_hardware_transactional_memory/c3p4oq7

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Ben <midfield@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/02/transactional-memory-going-mainstream-with-intel-haswell.ars
>
> would any haskell STM expert care to comment on the possibilities of hardware acceleration?
>
> best, ben
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe



--
Regards,
Austin

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe