On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 09:18:46AM +0200, Johannes Sixt wrote:

quoted

Yeah, that seems sane; my biggest worry was that it would create
headaches for Windows folks, who would have to emulate pthread_key. But
it seems like we already added support in 9ba604a.

pthread_key is not a problem, but pthread_once is. It's certainly
solvable, but do we really have to?

I'm not clear on what you are suggesting. That we protect only the main
thread from recursion, or that we drop the check entirely? Or that we
implement thread-local storage for this case without using pthread_once?

-Peff