From: Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Date: 2007-11-15T04:30:10+09:00
Subject: Re: state of threads in 1.9

On Nov 14, 2007 4:18 PM, Bill Kelly <billk@cts.com> wrote:
>
> From: "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com>
> >
> > Really, the only time that I've needed native thread support is for
> > extending existing C libraries. I don't see the upside for general
> > concurrency, since we're not getting multi-core support anyway.
>
> No multi-core support... ever?  I had presumed native threads were
> a step in that direction.  (No?)
>

They didn't say that :-P

The thing is that some C extensions currently coded don't are
thread-safe, so weird things could happen (including crashes and loss
of profit) ;-)

From my POV, is a ongoing process to be fully thread-safe, when that
goal is achieved, the lock around this issue will be removed.

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi