4 ms·
> Reentrancy is logically weaker than thread safety. It isn't; neither is an implication of the other. If you mistrust manpages, lookup the definition on Wikip
by jstimpfle 11y ago
> Reentrancy is logically weaker than thread safety.
It isn't; neither is an implication of the other. If you mistrust manpages, lookup the definition on Wikipedia.
But in many contexts "reentrant" is the better "thread-safe", as in "what you actually want" (give up mandatory locks to get scalability, composability...).
- kazinator 11y agoDo you have an example of a function inherently reentrant (pure function), or a function or object used in a reentrant manner, that isn't also thread-safe? Wikipedia's first paragraph on Reentrancy completely agrees with me; I'm not inclined to change a word. POSIX doesn't define "reentrancy" or "reentrant", though it uses those terms. They are not defined in the documents it includes by normative reference. ISO C is one of those references and also throws the word around. ISO C refers to a document called ISO 2382, whose Part 1 gives a technical vocabulary; it might be defined there. By POSIX, of course I don't mean the man pages on a Linux system, but the actual specification. I refer the online version from time to time, specifically this one: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/