[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Guile-commits] 05/17: regexec comment fix

From: Andy Wingo
Subject: [Guile-commits] 05/17: regexec comment fix
Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 22:50:44 +0000 (UTC)

wingo pushed a commit to branch master
in repository guile.

commit 445837754eadd0d3912a7977838280e036766845
Author: Andy Wingo <address@hidden>
Date:   Tue Nov 1 21:55:16 2016 +0100

    regexec comment fix
    * libguile/regex-posix.c (SCM_DEFINE): Remove comment about
      threadsafety, given that regexec does appear to be threadsafe.
 libguile/regex-posix.c |   11 -----------
 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-)

diff --git a/libguile/regex-posix.c b/libguile/regex-posix.c
index bec0f89..9350fb3 100644
--- a/libguile/regex-posix.c
+++ b/libguile/regex-posix.c
@@ -244,17 +244,6 @@ SCM_DEFINE (scm_regexp_exec, "regexp-exec", 2, 2, 0,
             "@end table")
 #define FUNC_NAME s_scm_regexp_exec
-  /* We used to have an SCM_DEFER_INTS, and then later an
-     SCM_CRITICAL_SECTION_START, around the regexec() call.  Can't quite
-     remember what defer ints was for, but a critical section would only be
-     wanted now if we think regexec() is not thread-safe.  The posix spec
-     reads like regexec is meant to be both thread safe and reentrant
-     (mentioning simultaneous use in threads, and in signal handlers).  So
-     for now believe no protection needed.  */
   int status, nmatches, offset;
   regmatch_t *matches;
   char *c_str;

reply via email to

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