Hi Ken, On Sat 21 Aug 2010 17:57, Ken Raeburn <raeb...@raeburn.org> writes:
> On Aug 18, 2010, at 11:56, Andy Wingo wrote (quoting the manual): >> Thus, you need to put in additional synchronizations when multiple >> threads want to use a single hashtable, or any other mutable Scheme >> object. > > Unfortunately this applies to some internals of the implementation too. > For example, "set-object-property!" and friends use a hash table and > assoc lists internally. Fixed, thanks. > scm_c_issue_deprecation_warning and scm_c_register_extension don't look > thread-safe to me (in the sense described above). Fixed also. > That's just from a spot check; I'm not even trying to be thorough. I await your more thorough check :) > And don't get me going on memory ordering models.... I'm interested! > To be honest, I wouldn't trust libguile in a multithreaded application > without much more careful analysis, not just of the code, but of the > assumptions being made and whether they're actually valid for various > processors (not just the relatively friendly x86) and compilers. > Without that sort of analysis, I think "use mutexes everywhere" is the > only safe approach, and libguile certainly isn't doing that. I think we agree, but I prefer to paint this in a more optimistic light -- that things are mostly there, but bugs are possible. Bug fixes are also possible :) Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/
