[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can we go GTK-only?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Can we go GTK-only? |
Date: |
Wed, 02 Nov 2016 17:49:30 +0200 |
> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:26:06 -0400
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>
> Cc: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>, address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden
>
> > > You categorically stated that memory allocation off the main
> > > thread is unsafe.
> >
> > No, I didn't.
>
> You were saying platforms exist where Emacs runs and malloc() is not
> thread safe mere hours ago.
No, I said some of them had thread-related bugs reported as recently
as few years ago. Which means they only recently became or are
becoming mature enough.
> However, might we take this as meaning that you now agree that
> malloc() is indeed thread safe?
Theoretically, yes. In practice, see above.
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, (continued)
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Daniel Colascione, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Daniel Colascione, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/03
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/11/01
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Stefan Monnier, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Nikolaus Rath, 2016/11/02
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Paul Eggert, 2016/11/02