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: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:53:57 +0200 Message-ID: <83ins5nai2.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> <20161101152027.5e94b6cc@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> <83ziljm0ei.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478102204 4353 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2016 15:56:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:56:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dancol@dancol.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, perry@piermont.com To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 02 16:56:39 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 1c1xtj-0006q6-S2 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:56:19 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55958 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xtm-0007uj-Ij for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:56:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46948) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xrA-0006d0-Rb for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:53:44 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xrA-0007sd-4M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:53:40 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34606) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xrA-0007sZ-0u; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:53:40 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4909 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xr9-000796-5x; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:53:39 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:27:49 -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:209116 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Cc: "Perry E. Metzger" , dancol@dancol.org, raeburn@raeburn.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 20:27:49 -0400 > > > 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. I named several factors that > > OK, so we agree that Emacs can assume that on any system where we can > use multithreading we can assume that the system's malloc will work just > right. "Should", not "will". And on some systems, only with very recent library versions. > So the only potential difficulties come from Emacs itself, > i.e. things over which *we* have control. Most of it, yes. As I was trying to tell in my OP.