[Python-ideas] Fwd: Concurrent safety?
Jim Jewett
jimjjewett at gmail.com
Fri Nov 4 15:38:29 CET 2011
On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 5:36 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> Jim Jewett writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen at xemacs.org> wrote:
> > > As for "wrapped C libraries", I'm having trouble imagining what you're
> > > talking about.
> > C code (currently) can create or modify python objects using a C
> > pointer, instead of python access.
> Right, and that means they complete bypass Mike's proposal, too. So
> his reference to them was a non sequitur in context, because AFAICS
> his proposal couldn't do anything more about them than mine could.
> Can it?
Not if it is just an additional compile-time restriction.
If the implementation is prepared to enforce the restriction at
run-time, that will almost certainly require some changes to memory
allocation. If done right, that might also be able to lock out rogue
C code, which should also allow a tracing GC, stronger security
guarantees, and GIL removal.
I don't personally see it happening without a currently unacceptable
slowdown for all memory access, but if he is looking 5-10 years out,
it is plausible. (I would still bet against it for mainstream
CPython, but it is plausible.)
-jJ
More information about the Python-ideas
mailing list