[issue26774] Elide Py_atomic fences when WITH_THREAD is disabled?

STINNER Victor added the comment: > I never liked the option to disable thread support. I close the issue. It is not longer possible to build Python without threading support. -- resolution: -> out of date stage: test needed -> resolved status: open -> closed

[issue26774] Elide Py_atomic fences when WITH_THREAD is disabled?

STINNER Victor added the comment: Discussion about --without-threads: * May 2012 https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2012-May/119333.html * Follow-up january 2013 https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-January/123505.html --

[issue26774] Elide Py_atomic fences when WITH_THREAD is disabled?

Antoine Pitrou added the comment: This sounds like additional hassle for not much gain. Agreed with Victor. -- nosy: +pitrou ___ Python tracker ___

[issue26774] Elide Py_atomic fences when WITH_THREAD is disabled?

STINNER Victor added the comment: I never liked the option to disable thread support. I don't think that anyone uses it but it requires many #ifdef in the code. I would prefer to drop the option. -- ___ Python tracker

[issue26774] Elide Py_atomic fences when WITH_THREAD is disabled?

New submission from Larry Hastings: Right now the atomic access fence macros in pyatomic.h are unconditional. This means that they're active even even when you "./configure --without-threads". If Python thread support is disabled, surely we don't need to ensure atomic access to variables,