From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:34 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <1a9d1378-c03d-faa0-027a-2118d25ad84c@cs.ucla.edu> References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <83bmy0pl8p.fsf@gnu.org> <831sywp7ew.fsf@gnu.org> <83y413nsjm.fsf@gnu.org> <403a4fd8-f9da-82df-956b-a3187de83cf9@cs.ucla.edu> <83lgx3no0k.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478020262 8950 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 17:11:02 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:11:02 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 Cc: dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 18:10:56 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ca6-0007hT-CF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:10:38 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49395 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ca8-0000c9-VB for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:10:41 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49067) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cLf-0006Bx-Au for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:55:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cLe-0006n2-BQ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:55:43 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:34758) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cLY-0006iJ-R3; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 12:55:36 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F3031608CE; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id vT4SaWjSSJbq; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78B04160D96; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id r72-RMOo0dkE; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU (Penguin.CS.UCLA.EDU [131.179.64.200]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5CDD31608CE; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:55:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <83lgx3no0k.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209061 Archived-At: On 11/01/2016 09:49 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > pthreads is not the only way to have threads. Whether one uses pthreads or not, a thread-safe malloc is the only sane way malloc in a multithreaded application. We shouldn't have to worry about multithreaded environments where malloc does not work. Such environments are too buggy to be a reasonable porting target for Emacs. > I'd imagine any code that wants to allocate from the heap will call > xmalloc No, code that allocates from the heap in non-Emacs-Lisp threads should call malloc directly. It shouldn't call Emacs xmalloc. Emacs xmalloc is intended for the Emacs Lisp thread. That's how it works now, anyway, and we should simply keep it that way.