From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Neil Jerram Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: Terrific Dead Lock Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:29:08 +0100 Message-ID: <87zlrto86j.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> References: <8763vq6yvv.fsf@gnu.org> <87y78lioxa.fsf@gnu.org> <87k5k1c4zm.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87fxtoik6a.fsf@gnu.org> <87ve2i4yl8.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87tzi2yv3o.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1208378356 5770 80.91.229.12 (16 Apr 2008 20:39:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:39:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 16 22:39:32 2008 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JmEGY-00007b-0w for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:30:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JmEFt-0007Xt-C3 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:21 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmEFo-0007Xf-3m for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:16 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JmEFm-0007XT-Kq for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:15 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JmEFm-0007XQ-Gz for guile-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:14 -0400 Original-Received: from mail3.uklinux.net ([80.84.72.33]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JmEFi-0002u9-9r; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:29:10 -0400 Original-Received: from arudy (host86-145-183-175.range86-145.btcentralplus.com [86.145.183.175]) by mail3.uklinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 507F41F67C2; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:29:09 +0100 (BST) Original-Received: from laruns (laruns [192.168.0.10]) by arudy (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE49A3800D; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:29:08 +0100 (BST) In-Reply-To: <87tzi2yv3o.fsf@gnu.org> (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s's?= message of "Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:03:55 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7169 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: > Hi, > > Neil Jerram writes: > >> Yes, fine. Sorry for forgetting about this. > > Thanks, applied. > >> (I wonder if SCM_CDR (scm_last_plist_filename) on one thread is >> guaranteed to give a sane value, if there is another thread >> simultaneously doing SCM_SETCDR (scm_last_plist_filename) - but I'm >> not an expert in this kind of thing.) > > Yes, I suppose that's the assumption, and it's probably a reasonable one > since `SCM_SETCDR' boils down to a single memory write. Exactly. If there is any risk here, I feel happy to live with it for now. Neil