On Sat, 2010-08-28 at 18:34 +0300, Siarhei Siamashka wrote: > I may be wrong here, but seems like everyone has his own definition of what > is > considered to be "thread safe". Currently pixman appears to be thread safe as > long as same pixman objects (pixman_image_t and the others) are not used from > multiple threads simultaneously. This is somewhat similar to the thread > safety > assumptions of the GNU implementation of a standard C++ template library. I'm > adding this link here because they took care of documenting what can be > guaranteed when working in a multi-threaded environment, and what can't be: > http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/using_concurrency.html#manual.intro.using.concurrency.thread_safety > http://www.sgi.com/tech/stl/thread_safety.html > Afaik everything we need is the ability to safely add/remove references to pixman images from multiple threads at the same time. So the only thing we need is atomic operations.
Unfortunately, those usually require a fallback implementation that uses mutexes, because there's no portable atomic ops implementation in existance. So once you implement atomic ops, you need mutexes. Benjamin _______________________________________________ Pixman mailing list Pixman@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/pixman
