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 19:46:30 +0200 Message-ID: <838tt3nle1.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> <20161101124112.2604a08c@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83h97rnnsk.fsf@gnu.org> <20161101132202.02a5e1eb@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478022624 8384 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 17:50:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:50:24 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca To: "Perry E. Metzger" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 18:50:20 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 1c1dCB-0007tj-FD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:49:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49823 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1dCE-00007q-5b for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:50:02 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44453) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1d8c-0006vs-Hf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:46:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1d8Z-0007lw-F0 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:46:18 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:42342) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1d8Z-0007lr-Bj; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:46:15 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4219 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1d8Y-0006K4-FV; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:46:14 -0400 In-reply-to: <20161101132202.02a5e1eb@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> (perry@piermont.com) 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:209073 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:22:02 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" > Cc: dancol@dancol.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, > emacs-devel@gnu.org > > > And even for POSIX > > platforms, you can find on the net reports about thread-unsafe > > malloc up to 2013 and 2014. That's not "very long time". > > Are you sure this wasn't just a report from some people who linked > with the wrong library? Yes. > The standard has required that malloc be thread safe as long as > pthreads has been around IIRC. Requiring is one thing; being able to implement it and weed out the bugs is quite another.