In article <mailman.449.1242835175.8015.python-l...@python.org>, Luis Zarrabeitia <ky...@uh.cu> wrote: >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?
Python is intended to be simple/easy to integrate with random C libraries. Therefore you have to write explicit code from the C side in order to drop the GIL. -- Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
