Hi Ken,
You mailed a long time ago with some threadsafety issues and I think
I've finally gotten to all of the ones you have mentioned.
You made good points regarding memory ordering also, but I'm going to
let that slide for now, as it didn't have specific bugs. Should you be
motivated to review
On Tue 15 Feb 2011 18:18, Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 17:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> procproc.c: There's a mutex to protect overrides, but it looks like
>>> set-procedure-property! doesn't use it correctly; it should look more
>>> like set-object-property! does.
>>
>> I'm going to pu
On Tue 15 Feb 2011 17:00, Ken Raeburn writes:
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 17:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
>>> symbols.c: I don't think 'symbols' is handled safely. But this code
> is
>>> all starting to run together in my mind. :-)
>>
>> I think I fixed this one a month ago or so.
>
> Hmm... maybe. It look
On Feb 10, 2011, at 17:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> procproc.c: There's a mutex to protect overrides, but it looks like
>> set-procedure-property! doesn't use it correctly; it should look more
>> like set-object-property! does.
>
> I'm going to punt on this one, since it cannot access the hash table i
On Feb 10, 2011, at 17:19, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Hey Ken,
>
> I got tired of seeing your mail marked as starred in my inbox, so I
> decided to take a look at it ;-)
Thanks! :-)
I'm sorry I haven't had time in a while to investigate more.
>> symbols.c: I don't think 'symbols' is handled safely. Bu
Hey Ken,
I got tired of seeing your mail marked as starred in my inbox, so I
decided to take a look at it ;-)
You were writing about threadsafe access to global variables.
On Sun 29 Aug 2010 03:33, Ken Raeburn writes:
> looking at deprecation.c, I'd suggest not printing stuff while the
> lock
On Aug 28, 2010, at 15:20, Andy Wingo wrote:
>> 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_ext
Hi Ken,
On Sat 21 Aug 2010 17:57, Ken Raeburn 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 t
(switching to guile-devel from guile-user since I think this is more of a
developers' issue)
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 mutab
