From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:53:11 +0200 Message-ID: <831sywp7ew.fsf@gnu.org> References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <83bmy0pl8p.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii 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 1477947291 24086 195.159.176.226 (31 Oct 2016 20:54:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 20:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 31 21:54:45 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 1c1Jam-0001Do-EM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 21:54:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38535 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1Jao-00007P-VJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58428) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JZz-00083A-Ky for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:53:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JZw-0000rR-L0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:53:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:54155) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JZw-0000rN-He; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:53:12 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3443 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1JZt-0000te-Vu; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 16:53:12 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Ken Raeburn on Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:22:50 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:209046 Archived-At: > From: Ken Raeburn > Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:22:50 -0400 > Cc: Stefan Monnier , > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:54, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > One problem with > > having too much code in separate threads is that only the main thread > > can call malloc/free, i.e. you cannot create/destroy objects in other > > threads. > > Wow. Is that a Windows limitation? It’s certainly not true under POSIX threads. No, it's a general limitation: malloc is non-reentrant. > Creating Lisp objects, that’d be another matter, unless locking is introduced to the allocator. If you cannot allocate Lisp objects, the scope of what you can do in the non-main threads is greatly diminished. E.g., no computation intensive jobs that operate on buffer text can be off-loaded to other threads.