From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:37788)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hQRs1-0002WL-07
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:29:05 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hQRrz-0003NZ-I5
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:29:04 -0400
Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:33502)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>)
	id 1hQRrz-0003N7-Ea
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:29:03 -0400
Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2)
	(envelope-from <Debian-debbugs@debbugs.gnu.org>) id 1hQRrz-0007YT-1u
	for guix-patches@gnu.org; Tue, 14 May 2019 03:29:03 -0400
Subject: [bug#35666] [PATCH 0/2] Build a thread-safe hdf5 library
Resent-Message-ID: <handler.35666.B35666.155781890228994@debbugs.gnu.org>
From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= <ludovic.courtes@inria.fr>
References: <20190510095630.16695-1-ludo@gnu.org> <87imuisf05.fsf@elephly.net>
	<87d0kq1mr2.fsf@gnu.org>
	<CY4PR1101MB2325973B0EC24AB6A7371D9AB70C0@CY4PR1101MB2325.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 09:28:11 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CY4PR1101MB2325973B0EC24AB6A7371D9AB70C0@CY4PR1101MB2325.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
	(Eric Bavier's message of "Fri, 10 May 2019 15:09:25 +0000")
Message-ID: <8736lh4hro.fsf@gnu.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: <guix-patches.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-patches@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-patches>,
	<mailto:guix-patches-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-patches" <guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org>
To: Eric Bavier <bavier@cray.com>
Cc: "35666@debbugs.gnu.org" <35666@debbugs.gnu.org>, "pgarlick@tourbillion-technology.com" <pgarlick@tourbillion-technology.com>

Hi Eric,

Eric Bavier <bavier@cray.com> skribis:

> I think this should be fine, though I've not heard of anyone who has
> relied on this feature.  The "unsupported" part here is that the posix
> lock used for thread-safety is not hoisted into the higher-level API
> calls.  So if your colleague is using the C++ interface and expecting
> thread-safety, they are out of luck.  So the disclaimer is that only
> the low-level C interface gains thread-safety, and the rest are no
> better.

I=E2=80=99m not sure I understand.  Do you mean that, just because you use =
the
C++ API instead of the C API, the library is not thread-safe?

They do see crashes vanish when using the library compiled with
=E2=80=98--enable-threadsafe=E2=80=99, and reliably so.

Thanks,
Ludo=E2=80=99.