segmentation fault, premature deallocation and segmentation fault (respectively)
I challenge you to demonstrate any one of those.
And when you can't, come back and I'll explain why you can't.
| [reply] |
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
| [reply] |
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:
- demonstrating a segfault using one of your original three perl statements.
- withdrawing the FUD.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |