From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: wip-ports-refactor Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 16:30:30 +0200 Message-ID: <87h9e6q92x.fsf@pobox.com> References: <87twjempnf.fsf@pobox.com> <20160424120519.2a44127e@bother.homenet> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1462890663 17407 80.91.229.3 (10 May 2016 14:31:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:31:03 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: Chris Vine Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 10 16:30:54 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b08gW-0005Vl-Hg for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 16:30:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46601 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b08gV-0005Kc-GB for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55003) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b08gS-0005EJ-08 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b08gK-0004K0-Ug for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:46 -0400 Original-Received: from pb-sasl2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.67]:54190 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b08gK-0004Jj-Nt for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:40 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CA6D184DA; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:39 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=iW63k9XIIV3ucuWl8uWevS8EAZQ=; b=e6smN4 3Bq8inor9ywL4QQijmcNxdpry1QpjV48YB+Z5bDJCXmniyI9gMmwGKaZlDM3LNlm 6i1pWT/GuMsTGatMc8kj3IqMnn89xJjxeoaw7AyUr2tEH666n3M//bIdaQt/rtwk hfvcH/WLqKQf7c68kOhjYahFubDUy24D39ndc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=MDMSleOERX9kuGTrWZOkih7MAokCtRGa ypnbCKuyuFoV3oGRmlAOpO6W/FyOjhC0sOXP3wmRZ2z4H4vFNGwwh2eyQ7WJY+rC a1QudwDu+gdDSU+vrYJAaY2DAnnJL0Uf7wTnnNi2+dgQX9of/W72JcGFmAD41HOj /0WvucxzQCw= Original-Received: from pb-sasl2. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E884184D9; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:39 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from clucks (unknown [88.160.190.192]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-sasl2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40690184D8; Tue, 10 May 2016 10:30:38 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <20160424120519.2a44127e@bother.homenet> (Chris Vine's message of "Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:05:19 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C41150F2-16BB-11E6-B1CE-D472793246D6-02397024!pb-sasl2.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 64.147.108.67 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "guile-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:18299 Archived-At: Hi :) On Sun 24 Apr 2016 13:05, Chris Vine writes: > on the question of guile's thread implementation, it seems to me to be > basically sound if you avoid obvious global state. I have had test > code running for hours, indeed days, without any appearance of data > races or other incorrect behaviour on account of guile's thread > implementation. Global state is an issue. Module loading (which you > mention) is an obvious one, but other things like setting load paths > don't look to be thread safe either. I think we have no plans for giving up pthreads. The problem is that like you say, if there is no shared state, and your architecture has a reasonable memory model (Intel's memory model is really great to program), then you're fine. But if you don't have a good mental model on what is shared state, or your architecture doesn't serialize loads and stores... well there things are likely to break. I like to recommend solutions that will absolutely work and never crash. (They could throw errors, but that doesn't crash Guile.) I can't do that with threads -- not right now anyway. If you know what you're doing though, go ahead and use them :) Andy