From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wolfgang Jaehrling Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [pthreads] performance test using fib.scm Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:27:09 +0100 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20021211172709.GA247@gmx.de> References: <200212110202.gBB22Et27423@mule.m17n.org> Reply-To: Wolfgang Jaehrling NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1039623677 24290 80.91.224.249 (11 Dec 2002 16:21:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 16:21:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18M9bn-0006JO-00 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 17:21:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18M9XO-0006Dm-02 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:16:42 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18M9X4-0006DS-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:16:22 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10.13) id 18M9X2-0006DB-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:16:21 -0500 Original-Received: from pop.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20] helo=mail.gmx.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.10.13) id 18M9X1-0006D5-00 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:16:19 -0500 Original-Received: (qmail 17697 invoked by uid 0); 11 Dec 2002 16:16:18 -0000 Original-Received: from dialin-145-254-215-035.arcor-ip.net (HELO kaputt.schrott) (145.254.215.35) by mail.gmx.net (mp019-rz3) with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 16:16:18 -0000 Original-Received: from wj by kaputt.schrott with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18MAda-000059-00; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 18:27:10 +0100 Original-To: NIIBE Yutaka Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212110202.gBB22Et27423@mule.m17n.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1b5 Precedence: list List-Id: Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1820 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:1820 On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 11:02:14AM +0900, NIIBE Yutaka wrote: > Wolfgang Jaehrling wrote: > > malloc() in glibc is thread-save, but not reentrant. Since the > > behaviour of realloc() is unlikely to differ from malloc() in this > > respect, you most certainly have to protect calls to it with a lock. > > I think that we need some definition of terminology to avoid > confusion. You mean signal protection, with the word "lock", not a > mutex, don't you? Yes. However, that malloc() in glibc is thread-save does not imply that this is the case for other libc:s as well, so a mutex _might_ still be necessary for some systems. If guile does not call malloc() (or realloc()) from a signal handler, then it is supposed to not be a problem for GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd (and other systems using glibc). Cheers, GNU/Wolfgang _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel