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: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:22:20 +0200 Message-ID: <8337jbngyb.fsf@gnu.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> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478028275 22197 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 19:24:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 19:24:35 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 20:24:30 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 1c1efS-0003rE-7k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:24:18 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50741 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1efV-0008E4-1D for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:24:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52633) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1edQ-0007On-71 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:22:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1edM-0002pA-9S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:22:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:44049) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1edM-0002p6-6d; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:22:08 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4338 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1edL-0007OK-3J; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:22:07 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:14:22 -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:209086 Archived-At: > 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. > BTW, w.r.t a GIL, AFAIK this discussion started mentioning threads > mostly as a way to *structure* the code to ease up interaction with libs > that want to have their own event loop (i.e. a matter of concurrency), > not as a way to improve performance. That's only part of what was said. The other parts said nothing about structuring.