[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can we go GTK-only?
From: |
Perry E. Metzger |
Subject: |
Re: Can we go GTK-only? |
Date: |
Tue, 1 Nov 2016 15:35:33 -0400 |
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 19:46:30 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The standard has required that malloc be thread safe as long as
> > pthreads has been around IIRC.
>
> Requiring is one thing; being able to implement it and weed out the
> bugs is quite another.
A bug in something as basic as malloc/free thread handling would
start causing ported C programs to fail almost immediately. The
operating system code would never get out of testing in such a state
let alone be released to users. malloc is called far too often.
I would not be shocked if some rare latent bugs existed in the average
threaded libc, after all, bugs are common in software, and
multithreading is particularly hard.
However, I would be shocked if a single threaded libc did not handle
this particular case in as bug free a manner as the rest of malloc
itself. If one is willing to accept the use of the system malloc in
the non-threaded case on the premise that it is reasonably bug free,
then one should likely accept that it handles thread safety as well.
Perry
--
Perry E. Metzger address@hidden
Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Perry E. Metzger, 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?, Daniel Colascione, 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?, Daniel Colascione, 2016/11/01
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