Thank you for the clarification, I should have been more precise... On 12/08/2011, at 23.38, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Rene Nejsum <r...@stranden.com> wrote: >> I think I understand the background and need for GIL. Without it Python >> programs would have been cluttered with lock/synchronized statements and >> C-extensions would be harder to write. > > No, sorry, the first half of this is incorrect: with or without the > GIL *Python* code would need the same amount of fine-grained locking. > (The part about C extensions is correct.) I am butting in because this > is a common misunderstanding that really needs to be squashed whenever > it is aired -- the GIL does *not* help Python code to synchronize. A > thread-switch can occur between any two bytecode opcodes. Without the > GIL, atomic operations (e.g. dict lookups that doesn't require > evaluation of __eq__ or __hash__ implemented in Python) are still > supposed to be atomic. > > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
