From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Perry E. Metzger" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:20:27 -0400 Message-ID: <20161101152027.5e94b6cc@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> 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> <83funbnngl.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1ifnmto.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478028053 23751 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 19:20:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:20:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Daniel Colascione , 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 20:20:47 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 1c1ebq-00046e-I1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:20:34 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50729 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ebt-0006Wv-7A for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:20:37 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51929) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ebn-0006Wm-3Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:20:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ebm-0002Fs-9T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:20:31 -0400 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:37831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ebk-0002EV-Sx; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:20:28 -0400 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49AA5678; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:20:28 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from jabberwock.cb.piermont.com (jabberwock.cb.piermont.com [10.160.2.107]) by snark.cb.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AFD42DE01E; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:20:28 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83d1ifnmto.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400 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:209085 Archived-At: On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 19:15:31 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim > > is extraordinary: it's been common practice for _decades_ to make > > memory allocations from multiple threads in multithreaded > > programming. > > This is simply incorrect. On _some_ platforms, that is true. But > not on all, not anywhere near that. You've explicitly refused to name an exception, and no one else is aware of one, so how can we give credence to your claim? Again, were your claim truly correct, no multithreaded C or C++ software would be stable on such a platform, so it seems like a very unlikely statement. This is the sort of bug that would be found in the first week that threading package shipped. The relevant standards have also required it as long as threads have existed. I am disinclined to believe it is true without evidence, and you refuse to present evidence. By the way: no one reasonable will think less of you if you later say you made a mistake. People make mistakes. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com