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: thread safe functions Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 22:25:24 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100805112743.GA1671@securactive.net> <8C8EEFE6-77CA-42E7-A2FB-9CEF4E83CDFF@raeburn.org> <5105E811-5A0E-4D7B-9A4A-D3DABB12406F@raeburn.org> <843F92D9-F5DF-42E3-848E-31EC03C1428F@raeburn.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1306182344 29743 80.91.229.12 (23 May 2011 20:25:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 May 2011 20:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel Development To: Ken Raeburn Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon May 23 22:25:39 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QObh0-0003Ma-WF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 22:25:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45026 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QObh0-0004Jy-HE for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:25:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44358) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QObgx-0004Jg-Qm for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:25:32 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QObgw-0007c1-KG for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:25:31 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com ([64.74.157.62]:62599 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QObgw-0007bw-HP for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:25:30 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E95556C; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:27:38 -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=59zTJCSWY7VSfxy77sUTmBPVwus=; b=qc4W0s XH6X4CJfN9cKqDRAtiBo8zfq7gBSaEQnyUEQL5AhXiaM6VGgMidOGOiPEssZrIhk FLCpbtFNSYrCrQulLzrbAJANutNRcQBEn7YZwwsBNZd5D60W5AaiQeuqTf6W57On kgvTPDG/ZAYMf/wm82j/d2qmQattSCfsAhXm8= 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=Iv1mtgU8QhBCuUU4I01zEOOL2VOIRQFL PHl9CDnREn4DSKZSGrFwutNZNk+h8fJiPO1jRbuM3hO2oDoBdJTbl4yNbZv/8/SI wpkjlm0busA216djqDnmTWJeQXCrSpzhGYtIDjJj/PoQujXjAApovbxU4ZKXWg0M UGgDY1VkB4I= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CB7556B; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:27:37 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote.localdomain (unknown [90.164.198.39]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7658F556A; Mon, 23 May 2011 16:27:35 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <843F92D9-F5DF-42E3-848E-31EC03C1428F@raeburn.org> (Ken Raeburn's message of "Tue, 15 Feb 2011 11:00:51 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 192FC956-857B-11E0-9C6C-D6B6226F3D4C-02397024!a-pb-sasl-sd.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 64.74.157.62 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:12525 Archived-At: On Tue 15 Feb 2011 17:00, Ken Raeburn writes: > On Feb 10, 2011, at 17:19, Andy Wingo wrote: >>> symbols.c: I don't think 'symbols' is handled safely. But this code > is >>> all starting to run together in my mind. :-) >> >> I think I fixed this one a month ago or so. > > Hmm... maybe. It looks to me like it'll probably be okay, *if* you > assume that updates aren't seen out-of-order by another thread. Indeed, you are right. Fixed. Did not appear to have any performance impact, either... Andy -- http://wingolog.org/