> to call the same function, on the same data, from multiple threads, without synchronization, provided that any shared data is accessed exclusively along const paths
I think something went wrong with the wording here. "Same function, on the same instance, from multiple threads..." On Sun, Jul 19, 2026 at 12:54 AM Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday, 18 July 2026 14:47:13 Pacific Daylight Time Giuseppe D'Angelo > via > Development wrote: > > I think we should officially extend the contract, because: > > Agreed. > > > > The tradeoff is that the functions that are currently marked as > > reentrant and use lazy initialization, caching, or any similar > > thread-unsafe techniques, need to be documented to be *not* reentrant. > > Luckily there should be very few of such functions. I guess that > > documenting these few exceptions is a smaller loss than the gain of > > aligning ourselves to C++ established practices / people's expectations. > > Preferably, fix those we can, because we can't expect everyone to have > read the > documentation. Even if they have, exceptions to the rule are hard to > remember. > > -- > Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com > Principal Engineer - Intel DCG - Platform & Sys. Eng. > -- > Development mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development >
-- Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
