On Sat, 20 Aug 2016 07:25:06 +0900 Norihiro Tanaka <nori...@kcn.ne.jp> wrote: > Hi Zev, > > Thanks for replying. I say a reverse thing. > > I believe that there is no problem if only dfaexec() is thread safe. In > other words, I think that variables that we must really move to support > multipthread are eolbyte, sbit and letters, newline only which depend > on eolbyte, and mbrtowc_cache[] and never_trail should be changed as the > value does not changed by other thread at running dfaexec() by marking > already set, and we can leave other static and global as syntax etc. > It will bring us to the saving of memory albeit only slightly.
Ah, I replied for first patch, but my all comments are for second or later patches. I agree for first patch entirely regardless of whether we support multithread or not.
