From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 13:13:07 +0000 Message-ID: <874jmh6v4s.fsf@localhost> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> <87cz16o8vz.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzve8r4m.fsf@localhost> <871qhmo5nv.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkgq8p5t.fsf@localhost> <831qhmjwk0.fsf@gnu.org> <875y6y8nlr.fsf@localhost> <87h6qhnalc.fsf@yahoo.com> <87ilax71wo.fsf@localhost> <878rbtkz2c.fsf@yahoo.com> <87a5w96x2o.fsf@localhost> <87jzvdjjp4.fsf@yahoo.com> <877crd6w53.fsf@localhost> <877crdjiwn.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="22967"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 15:14:15 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qHOoI-0005lO-Ai for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 15:14:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHOnS-0007t6-BN; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 09:13:22 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHOnK-0007sl-Dc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 09:13:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHOnH-0000mr-6U for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 09:13:14 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D748240107 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:13:07 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688649187; bh=qm7Gpa6lj750MYSkbgM7lAfHb0t9zuTDAh3a30BrUa4=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=ltnm4/C1i33F/ORi3GONnkQmFWFQMshDn/FLYQ5K7WXwh2jo8RrHZQRLLRwAyWQda T7ydnnFzksBGFWk2VwMDH9mQ7vLKAP+cqPtcW6D8kfdtxMmcc03lbeDTnb7zey2AG/ tsRbeUmRbc+hESjIvBmmEa+dxwnjy17ZWzvV0J99bLXjblBo4lgZAWQxrWSJjdJtGn bilRbgZRgW/tAvrr4feuLy46DLczxrms+WSiPHifughW/d+9LCsz3pHu6EldR2Jihz YndRsySHEKlBIMgBLdRj2fjL0bmjvjePCP+4V3JmlB1AADqDMIQMmjaG0adrX1XVwg 4+OKojZjs5h2A== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QxcQp3k4Zz6twM; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 15:13:06 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <877crdjiwn.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307506 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: >>>> LOCK_OBJECT (foo); >>>> LOCK_OBJECT (XCAR (foo)); >>> ... >> ... >> Do you mean that locking XCAR (foo) is unnecessary when foo is locked? > > No, that there is no need to lock a cons (or a vector, or anything else > with a fixed number of Lisp_Object slots) before reading or writing to > it. I feel confused here. My understanding is CHECK_STRING (XCAR (foo)); foo = XSTRING (XCAR (foo)); So, locking is needed to ensure that CHECK_STRING assertion remains valid. Or did you refer to something else? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at