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 15:42:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20161101154247.0d870b8c@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> <8337jbngyb.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 1478029389 28056 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 19:43:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, Stefan Monnier , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 20:43:04 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 1c1exS-0005fU-It for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:42:54 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50816 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1exV-0006Od-CI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:42:57 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58647) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1exO-0006OK-Ri for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:42:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1exO-00019J-4g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:42:50 -0400 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([2001:470:30:84:e276:63ff:fe62:3400]:37882) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1exM-000193-ED; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:42:48 -0400 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5B12678; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:42:47 -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 98B152DE01E; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:42:47 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <8337jbngyb.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:209090 Archived-At: On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:22:20 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Stefan Monnier > > Cc: Daniel Colascione , raeburn@raeburn.org, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:14:22 -0400 > > > > > This is simply incorrect. On _some_ platforms, that is true. > > > But not on all, not anywhere near that. > > > > Give us a hint what hides behind this "not all". Clearly, I'm > > not alone here who really has no idea what you're afraid of, > > here. Multi-threaded programming is nasty, yes, but not nasty > > enough that you can't use malloc. > > What's the use? You don't want to hear. So let's leave it at that. In addition to not being able to name an OS that has (a) emacs runs on (b) has threads and (c) supports C where (d) malloc is not thread safe, I cannot name a person in this discussion who thinks you are saying something correct here. This is not a question of one person not wanting to hear a well established claim in spite of evidence. There is a large group, in fact, that thinks you are making a weird claim without evidence, and I do not believe anyone so far thinks you are correct. Again, this is easily resolved. Give us an example of such an OS. Or perhaps say "I cannot give such an example" and let go of it with dignity. Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com