Re: bugs regarding late g_thread_init() calls

["Matthias Clasen" <matthias clasen gmail com>]

On 1/4/07, Tor Lillqvist <tml iki fi> wrote:
> Michael Meeks writes:
>  > Of course, the argument "it was always like that" is perhaps
>  > better, though Owen suggests it wasn't always :-)
>
> Indeed it wasn't. GNOME programs have been calling tons of GLib
> functions before gnome_program_init() eventually called
> g_thread_init() for ages without ill effects, as far as I know.
>
> So, as much as I hate saying this, I think that it is too late now
> starting crashing if g_thread_init() is called too late. It's our own
> fault. When we introduced a requirement like that, we should have
> *enforced* it.

I agree with this. If at all possible, fixing gslice to tolerate late
thread initialization is by far the best solution that will cause the
least problems for existing applications.

> In my opinion what needs to be done is this: GLib should normally
> always be threaded (behave as if g_thread_init(NULL) had been called
> at the very start of main()), and g_thread_init(NULL) will thus turn
> into a no-op.

This is very hard to do. You need a way to hook the g_thread_init()
call into the startup sequence. If you use an _init function or similar
mechanism, then your i_promise_no_threads() call will come too
late to prevent thread initialization...

Matthias