[Top][All Lists]

[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 15:42:47 -0400

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 21:22:20 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > From: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>
> > Cc: Daniel Colascione <address@hidden>,  address@hidden,
> > address@hidden Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2016 15:14:22 -0400
> >   
> > > This is simply incorrect.  On _some_ platforms, that is true.
> > > But not on all, not anywhere near that.  
> > 
> > Give us a hint what hides behind this "not all".  Clearly, I'm
> > not alone here who really has no idea what you're afraid of,
> > here.  Multi-threaded programming is nasty, yes, but not nasty
> > enough that you can't use malloc.  
> What's the use?  You don't want to hear.  So let's leave it at that.

In addition to not being able to name an OS that has (a) emacs
runs on (b) has threads and (c) supports C where (d) malloc is not
thread safe, I cannot name a person in this discussion who thinks you
are saying something correct here.

This is not a question of one person not wanting to hear a well
established claim in spite of evidence. There is a large group, in
fact, that thinks you are making a weird claim without evidence, and I
do not believe anyone so far thinks you are correct.

Again, this is easily resolved. Give us an example of such an OS. Or
perhaps say "I cannot give such an example" and let go of it with

Perry E. Metzger                address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]