Re: crypt mutex

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

Mikael Djurfeldt <address@hidden> writes:

> Marius Vollmer <address@hidden> writes:
>
>>> In most cases, I would probably draw the line so that as much as
>>> possible of the responsibility is left to the user with the
>>> exceptions that 1. Guile should never segfault due to misuse in
>>> this respect, and, 2. Guile need to have enough thread safety so
>>> that it's reasonably convenient to write parallel programs.
>>
>> Yes, exactly my view.  Also, I would broaden point 1 a bit: we should
>> also 'fix' functions that can not every be used in a threaded program
>> without mutexes around them.  Like libc getpwent.  They might not
>> segfault, but you can't use them anyway in a threaded program.
>
> But the normal case is *not* a threaded program.  The everyday program
> can use crypt with a static buffer without mutexes.  A *threaded*
> program needs mutexes...
>
> This is why I'm leaning towards a minimal policy---to design for the
> common case of non-threaded programs, but leave the possibility open
> to write parallel code without too much difficulty.

Of course: If you by 'fix' mean making functions reentrant (that is:
fixes without too much overhead), then I would agree.

M