From: Marius Vollmer <mvo@zagadka.de>
Cc: Bill Schottstaedt <bil@ccrma.stanford.edu>, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2004 23:38:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87k73z1la9.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87wu91mxhf.fsf@zip.com.au> (Kevin Ryde's message of "Sat, 13 Dec 2003 09:23:40 +1000")
Kevin Ryde <user42@zip.com.au> writes:
> Bill Schottstaedt <bil@ccrma.Stanford.EDU> writes:
>>
>> I'd vote for a lock,
>
> I guess everywhere inspecting the parts of a fraction would need to
> acquire and release such a lock. Perhaps a macro that did that and
> delivered out the parts could stop it being too awful when coding.
This is a general problem with the data structures in libguile and we
need to solve it generally. I haven't made my mind up about this
yet... there is the drastic and easy way: restrict guile threads to be
cooperative (then we don't need object-level locks). Or we could
allow full concurrency and be pedantic about object-level locks.
Allowing full concurrency is very attractive if we can pull it off.
It looks like we can, but it will be hard to be convinced that
absolutely no race conditions exist in libguile, and that users of
libguile wont introduce new ones.
> Unfortunately I believe it is, in the new-style free-running
> concurrent posix threads. It'll be one of those threading things
> that might almost never actually cause a problem, but alas is not
> right.
Right. I don't have the courage or arguments right now to remove the
fully concurrent threads, but I know I would feel happier if we didn't
had them...
--
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3 331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-10 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-11 11:43 scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety Bill Schottstaedt
2003-12-11 19:19 ` Carl Witty
2003-12-12 12:11 ` Bill Schottstaedt
2003-12-12 15:04 ` Paul Jarc
2003-12-12 23:23 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-10 22:38 ` Marius Vollmer [this message]
2004-01-10 23:29 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-11 1:31 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-12 0:51 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-12 5:22 ` Richard Todd
2004-01-14 21:09 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-21 0:03 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 0:00 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 3:11 ` Carl Witty
2004-01-21 21:06 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-27 22:15 ` Dirk Herrmann
2004-01-27 23:24 ` Rob Browning
2004-01-29 19:35 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-29 20:32 ` Rob Browning
2004-01-30 14:45 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2004-02-01 18:49 ` Andy Wingo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-12-09 20:39 Kevin Ryde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87k73z1la9.fsf@zagadka.ping.de \
--to=mvo@zagadka.de \
--cc=bil@ccrma.stanford.edu \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).