From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:55:24 -0700 Message-ID: <340B9D49-8AE6-4E11-99B8-04E67BEB721A@dancol.org> 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> <20161101222606.128e4843@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83lgx1naph.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478102230 14870 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2016 15:57:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:57:10 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii ,"Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 16:57:06 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 1c1xuN-0002cK-N3 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:56:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55970 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xuQ-0000uG-FY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:57:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48087) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xt6-0008LW-Qn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:55:41 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xt5-0000Xe-SG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:55:40 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:50506) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xt2-0000VH-0Q; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:55:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Message-ID:CC:To:Date:From:Subject:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To; bh=bD8nkkbhCqy9WTzenBn0fkassWsQ47CbhgkVo6OH0zI=; b=PCSxFE3Udoxg2s6IhfiQMG7ERJNO0kRLuU7wkI6N6Q5YPHrcRPkmghpkB9io4pSLJ0a/uyNdudouEoYr1mt0mVjlTzOStMfXcyq3hxL1+lN2b3Cocp/EMh0aotXpGrstYmwuO0AXCfQ8Ig1E1aNP6Qw5bHkiTWOWNJZzaGvqMtcz7gunaPNOZ9q+xQkPEgGPWGqAo+EFZYrIRnU6k2KKYAWncq9T1AwYhVWTge0EcxzVN3e5py3D0/dYqJY8YxYLtpWYGH6YPZaMDRLRnT/KogHmFn8Thmu1rFySpj4yHxzkrznbux6YBveFFOrHW0qrWfG6gfhBGkNikCbPKD/54g==; Original-Received: from mobile-166-176-185-175.mycingular.net ([166.176.185.175] helo=[10.140.246.134]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xsy-0005OF-O3; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 08:55:32 -0700 In-Reply-To: <83lgx1naph.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 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:209117 Archived-At: On November 2, 2016 8:49:30 AM PDT, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:26:06 -0400 >> From: "Perry E. Metzger" >> Cc: Daniel Colascione , raeburn@raeburn.org, >> monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> > > 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. > >No, I said some of them had thread-related bugs reported as recently >as few years ago. Which means they only recently became or are >becoming mature enough. > >> However, might we take this as meaning that you now agree that >> malloc() is indeed thread safe? > >Theoretically, yes. In practice, see above. In practice it's safe as well. Nobody else is developing software under the assumption that libc malloc is not thread safe.