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 17:49:30 +0200 Message-ID: <83lgx1naph.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> <7875855e-b632-491c-c616-4f3662a525af@dancol.org> <83vaw7lyoc.fsf@gnu.org> <20161101222606.128e4843@jabberwock.cb.piermont.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478102075 13093 195.159.176.226 (2 Nov 2016 15:54:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 15:54:35 +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 Wed Nov 02 16:54:31 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 1c1xrY-0008OA-6O for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 16:54:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55944 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xra-000666-Mh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:54:06 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45897) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xmv-0002u1-0v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:49:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xms-0006dU-0k for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:49:17 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:34555) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xmr-0006dQ-UO; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:49:13 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:4902 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1c1xmr-0006lc-5W; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:49:13 -0400 In-reply-to: <20161101222606.128e4843@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:209115 Archived-At: > 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.