This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rich Felker <dalias at aerifal dot cx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Dec 2013 19:14:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus on MT-, AS- and AC-Safety docs.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <528A7C8F dot 8060805 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311182312130 dot 8831 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5fv8nl dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311201555320 dot 28804 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orli0itbm5 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311211322040 dot 14539 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or4n75t4b7 dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221324200 dot 5029 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orob5csdvx dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311221535560 dot 8443 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <or61rjs2li dot fsf at livre dot home> <orhab3qktz dot fsf at livre dot home> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311251755140 dot 12149 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <orpppop975 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385414332 dot 3152 dot 3643 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <orhaayoqk8 dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385549084 dot 3152 dot 5896 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <ork3ftmvkj dot fsf at livre dot home> <1385657312 dot 3152 dot 9107 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <or8uw5jmh0 dot fsf at livre dot home>
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 01:09 -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2013, Torvald Riegel <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >> Same goes for dictionaries, mind you. Once we get used to n. and
> >> adj. and such stuff, it becomes second nature, but try to remember the
> >> first time you opened a dictionary to look a word up. There is a *lot*
> >> of stuff that we learn to filter out over time so that we can focus on
> >> what we're looking for. One of my concerns is that, the longer the
> >> portion about safety is at each function, the more threatening it will
> >> seem for a significant portion of our target audience.
> > Threatening because it's more verbose, and rather easy-to-speak and
> > easy-to-remember?
> Threatening because of the amount of data. A drop of water is not
> threatening, but an ocean can be, even though it's little more than a
> lot of drops of water.
> > (1) I asked you for a precise definition of MT-Safe, and I claim that
> > the current definitions aren't sufficiently precise.
> I think I have a precise definition. Can you back up your claim by
> giving a concrete situation in which you believe the definition fails to
> capture some notion of safety?
In another email, I mentioned a couple of choices that a definition of
MT-Safe will have to make.
> Perhaps using bsearch, the example we
> discussed F2F?
> > (2) I believe that something similar to sequential consistency is
> > easier for our users (and we would follow the choice made by C11 and
> > C++11).
> POSIX already specifies interfaces that explicitly permit interleaving
> of executions, so this boat has already sailed.
That doesn't conflict with sequential consistency, BTW. You can break
up a function into several parts, for example, yet those can still be
> It must be something
> much weaker than strict sequential consistency to model existing
> > Those are *separate* things. You can do (1) without ever agreeing
> > with me about (2). Don't try to put it like I can't distinguish
> > between both.
> That was the impression I got from you; it never came across as two
> separate issues to me.
The very first questions that I had when you started this work were
questions about your definition of MT-Safe, and when you pointed to the
loose definition in the standard, how you would interpret this loose
definition. I didn't get a precise definition, so I asked whether it
would be sequentially consistent, or weaker, noting that sequentially
consistent is easier for users.