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 22:26:06 -0400 Message-ID: <20161101222606.128e4843@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> <20161101152027.5e94b6cc@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83ziljm0ei.fsf@gnu.org> <7875855e-b632-491c-c616-4f3662a525af@dancol.org> <83vaw7lyoc.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 1478053644 7774 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2016 02:27:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 02:27:24 +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 Wed Nov 02 03:27:18 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 1c1lGG-00058L-OU for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 03:26:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52198 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1lGJ-0000Ra-6H for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:26:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49753) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1lFk-0000R5-0w for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:26:12 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1lFj-00051E-5n for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:26:12 -0400 Original-Received: from hacklheber.piermont.com ([166.84.7.14]:46875) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1lFf-0004wo-FB; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:26:07 -0400 Original-Received: from snark.cb.piermont.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hacklheber.piermont.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFB981F5; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:26:06 -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 79AB32DE01E; Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:26:06 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <83vaw7lyoc.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 166.84.7.14 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:209098 Archived-At: On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 22:42:27 +0200 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > > emacs-devel@gnu.org From: Daniel Colascione > > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:17:01 -0700 > > > > > I was not talking about multithreading in general. I was > > > talking specifically about Emacs, its coding practices, and its > > > particular design and needs wrt memory allocation. > > > > You categorically stated that memory allocation off the main > > thread is unsafe. > > No, I didn't. You were saying platforms exist where Emacs runs and malloc() is not thread safe mere hours ago. I am happy to provide you with your comments from the archive if you don't recall that. However, might we take this as meaning that you now agree that malloc() is indeed thread safe? Perry -- Perry E. Metzger perry@piermont.com