Mark,


Hadn't dug into the internals of ports enough to know that (have only scratched the surface). That is good to know, though.  Thank you. Saves work.



Freja

On June 19, 2017 7:13:00 PM GMT+02:00, Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> wrote:
>Freja Nordsiek <fnordsie@gmail.com> writes:
>> Hmm, just realized, to add on top of what you said, method has a
>major
>> thread-safety problem if the bytevector output port is accessed from
>> more than one thread. Definitely need to fix this.
>
>In Guile, port operations are not specified to include built-in thread
>synchronization.  Thread synchronization is quite expensive on most
>platforms, and only needed in a small minority of cases, so it should
>be
>added by the application where needed.  Bytevector port operations
>could
>be made quite cheap in a future implementation of Guile with native
>code
>generation, and we should avoid making promises that would add
>significant work to inherently inexpensive operations.
>
>     Thanks,
>       Mark