[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 13:56:52 -0400 |
On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 19:46:30 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 13:22:02 -0400
> > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden,
> > address@hidden, address@hidden
> >
> > > And even for POSIX
> > > platforms, you can find on the net reports about thread-unsafe
> > > malloc up to 2013 and 2014. That's not "very long time".
> >
> > Are you sure this wasn't just a report from some people who linked
> > with the wrong library?
>
> Yes.
>
> > 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.
>
I am having trouble believing this is really the case. Essentially
all threaded software would break if required libc library calls
weren't thread safe. Could you please point at a specific
example of this having happened on a platform built after the mid
1990s?
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