John Darrington <[email protected]> writes: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 09:05:07PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > John Darrington <[email protected]> writes: > > > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 08:26:57PM -0700, Ben Pfaff wrote: > > John Darrington <[email protected]> writes: > > > > > Any objections if I check in some thread safety changes to the > lower > > > levels, such as the attached patch ? > > > > > > I don't think there's going to be a multi-threaded pspp for > production > > > use any time soon, but I've been doing some experiments in > order to > > > find out what some of the issues are. > > > > Could we put this into a separate branch? I'm nervous about > > adding unneeded dependencies. > > > > It doesn't need any additional dependencies, unless you count an extra > > gnulib module as a dependency. > > Won't the gnulib module will cause our binaries to link against > new libraries, e.g. libpthread on Linux? > > At any rate, this will change some very cheap operations, such as > incrementing a value, into relatively expensive ones. > > I thought they were supposed to do nothing if a thread library wasn't > specified.
But the "lock" module is at least documented to require linking against a thread library. Maybe it doesn't really require it, but... I'm not against making PSPP thread-safe, but I'm against it if we aren't actually threading PSPP. -- Ben Pfaff http://benpfaff.org _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
