On Jan 24, 10:43 am, "Carl J. Van Arsdall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Chris Mellon wrote: > > On 24 Jan 2007 18:21:38 GMT, Nick Maclaren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> [snip] > > > I'm aware of the issues with the POSIX threading model. I still stand > > by my statement - bringing up the problems with the provability of > > correctness in the POSIX model amounts to FUD in a discussion of > > actual problems with actual code. > > > Logic and programming errors in user code are far more likely to be > > the cause of random errors in a threaded program than theoretical > > (I've never come across a case in practice) issues with the POSIX > > standard.Yea, typically I would think that. The problem I am seeing is > incredibly intermittent. Like a simple pyro server that gives me a > problem maybe every three or four months. Just something funky will > happen to the state of the whole thing, some bad data, i'm having an > issue tracking it down and some more experienced programmers mentioned > that its most likely a race condition. THe thing is, I'm really not > doing anything too crazy, so i'm having difficult tracking it down. I > had heard in the past that there may be issues with threads, so I > thought to investigate this side of things. > > It still proves difficult, but reassurance of the threading model helps > me focus my efforts. > > > Emphasizing this means that people will tend to ignore bugs as being > > "the fault of POSIX" rather than either auditing their code more > > carefully, or avoiding threads entirely (the second being what I > > suspect your goal is). > > > As a last case, I should point out that while the POSIX memory model > > can't be proven safe, concrete implementations do not necessarily > > suffer from this problem.Would you consider the Linux implementation of > > threads to be concrete? > > -carl > > -- > > Carl J. Van Arsdall > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Build and Release > MontaVista Software
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
