[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Can we go GTK-only?
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: Can we go GTK-only? |
Date: |
Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:53:11 +0200 |
> From: Ken Raeburn <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 14:22:50 -0400
> Cc: Stefan Monnier <address@hidden>,
> address@hidden
>
>
> On Oct 31, 2016, at 11:54, Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > One problem with
> > having too much code in separate threads is that only the main thread
> > can call malloc/free, i.e. you cannot create/destroy objects in other
> > threads.
>
> Wow. Is that a Windows limitation? It’s certainly not true under POSIX
> threads.
No, it's a general limitation: malloc is non-reentrant.
> Creating Lisp objects, that’d be another matter, unless locking is introduced
> to the allocator.
If you cannot allocate Lisp objects, the scope of what you can do in
the non-main threads is greatly diminished. E.g., no computation
intensive jobs that operate on buffer text can be off-loaded to other
threads.
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, (continued)
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Daniel Colascione, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Perry E. Metzger, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Ken Raeburn, 2016/10/31
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: Can we go GTK-only?, Daniel Colascione, 2016/10/31