Re^5: is ||= threadsafe?

[ikegami]

Well, a refcount increase is an increment, and increment operations aren't necessarily thread safe, so a refcount increase is not necessarily thread-safe.

Update: Fixed unintentional misquote, used clearer wording

[BrowserUk]

x = x + 1, which you've already said isn't safe

I never said that. I never implied that. For a start, what is "x"? It's not a perl variable is it. So it's just a meaningless equation.

Do I need to demonstrate further,

Yes. You need to demonstrate an actual segfault.

Why. Because what you are suggesting is possible, is IMPOSSIBLE. IT CANNOT HAPPEN.

Which makes your unfounded speculation: FUD. And, given that it is coming from you, a usually reliable and knowledgeable source, makes it dangerous and significant FUD. Possibly even deliberately malicious FUD.

So please, demonstrate your good intent by either:

1. demonstrating a segfault using one of your original three perl statements.
2. withdrawing the FUD.

[ikegami]

I never said that. I never implied that

Sorry, you said ||=, not increment. I had fixed it, but too slow it seems.

For a start, what is "x"?

I clearly said it was the ref count.

You need to demonstrate an actual segfault.

Why are you playing dumb? I wasted enough time with one. You can do the others yourself.

Which makes your unfounded speculation: FUD

It's not unfounded. I really don't know it to be thread-safe. It's not documented anywhere, and I don't have any reason to believe it is thread safe. Even you haven't said it was.

[BrowserUk]

I wasted enough time with one.

Where and when? Link please?

It's not unfounded.

Until you demonstrate it, it is unfounded.

and I don't have any reason to believe it is thread safe.

You are stating on the record that you are totally unaware that Perl protects its internals with internal locking?

You are stating outright that if I search this site I won't find a single occasion when you have indicated your knowledge of that internal locking?