Re: Can we go GTK-only?

[Perry E. Metzger]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:11:57 +0200 Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Of course you can call malloc from multiple threads. Otherwise,
> > projects like jemalloc would be pointless. You can freely
> > allocate and deallocate from different threads on both POSIX and
> > Windows systems, and there is no need to free an object on the
> > thread that allocated it.  
> 
> IMO, this is not a safe assumption, even though in practice more and
> more systems out there provide thread-safe native malloc.  Only C11
> mandates that malloc/realloc/free shall be thread-safe, and we don't
> yet require C11.

I was under the impression the requirement that malloc be thread safe
was before now a POSIX/pthreads thing, not a C standard thing, and
that this had been the case for a very long time.

SUS says this explicitly here: 
http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/V2_chap02.html#tag_15_09

   2.9.1 Thread-Safety

   All functions defined by this volume of POSIX.1-2008 shall be
   thread-safe, except that the following functions need not be
   thread-safe.

It then goes on to not mention malloc, so malloc is required to be
thread safe.

I can look up old versions of the standard but I believe it was the
case as long as pthreads has been around.

Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger                address@hidden