[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:16:36 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.5 |
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> OTOH, the unlocked-io package sounds to me
> like something you should opt-in for, not opt-out from. So couldn't
> packages that want the unlocked-io optimization go through extra work,
> instead of forcing packages that want to be thread safe to go through
> extra work?
The vast majority of GNU packages so far is single-threaded. We make things
easy for the majority; it's not a useful policy (in the sense of "worse is
better") to make things complicated for the majority just to serve a minority
and a theoretical argument.
In other areas it's already the case that thread-safety comes with extra
effort: you have to create lock objects, think about which lock protects
which object, declare some of your global variables as being __thread, etc.
Bruno
- [Bug-gnulib] requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Bruno Haible, 2003/11/20
- [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Simon Josefsson, 2003/11/21
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Bruno Haible, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Jim Meyering, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Paul Eggert, 2003/11/24
- Re: [Bug-gnulib] Re: requirements of 'unlocked-io' module, Bruno Haible, 2003/11/24