On Monday 18 May 2009 10:31:06 pm Carl Banks wrote: > Even if you decided to accept the penalty and add locking to > refcounts, you still have to be prepared for context switching at any > time when writing C code, which means in practice you have to lock any > object that's being accessed--that's in addition to the refcount lock.
While I agree that the GIL greatly simplifies things for the interpreter, I don't understand this statement. In practice, you should lock all critical sections if you expect your code to be used in a multithreading environment. That can't be different from what Java, C# or any other languages do, including C++. Why is that so expensive in python extensions, that it is used as an argument against removing the GIL? -- Luis Zarrabeitia (aka Kyrie) Fac. de Matemática y Computación, UH. http://profesores.matcom.uh.cu/~kyrie -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
