From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Mikael Djurfeldt Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: crypt mutex Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:46:50 -0500 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: References: <87znbdi85m.fsf@zip.com.au> <87znb98v9x.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> Reply-To: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1077567480 22715 80.91.224.253 (23 Feb 2004 20:18:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Cc: djurfeldt@nada.kth.se, guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Feb 23 21:17:46 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvMWQ-0004Rv-00 for ; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:17:46 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AvMPP-0006Aj-Dt for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:10:31 -0500 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1AvM9A-00010D-D6 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:53:44 -0500 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.30) id 1AvM7e-0000Tp-My for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:52:41 -0500 Original-Received: from [213.212.20.77] (helo=kvast.blakulla.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1AvM2a-000831-Ma for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:46:56 -0500 Original-Received: from chunk.mit.edu ([18.42.2.92] helo=chunk ident=Debian-exim) by kvast.blakulla.net with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AvM2V-00044g-00; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:46:51 +0100 Original-Received: from mdj by chunk with local (Exim 4.30) id 1AvM2U-0006WE-EL; Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:46:50 -0500 Original-To: Marius Vollmer In-Reply-To: <87znb98v9x.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> (Marius Vollmer's message of "Mon, 23 Feb 2004 20:12:42 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3438 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3438 Marius Vollmer writes: >> In most cases, I would probably draw the line so that as much as >> possible of the responsibility is left to the user with the >> exceptions that 1. Guile should never segfault due to misuse in >> this respect, and, 2. Guile need to have enough thread safety so >> that it's reasonably convenient to write parallel programs. > > Yes, exactly my view. Also, I would broaden point 1 a bit: we should > also 'fix' functions that can not every be used in a threaded program > without mutexes around them. Like libc getpwent. They might not > segfault, but you can't use them anyway in a threaded program. But the normal case is *not* a threaded program. The everyday program can use crypt with a static buffer without mutexes. A *threaded* program needs mutexes... This is why I'm leaning towards a minimal policy---to design for the common case of non-threaded programs, but leave the possibility open to write parallel code without too much difficulty. M _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel