From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-23 16:11:13
At 01:24 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Kevin S. Van Horn wrote:
>weak/strong/fair. But I think an important part of the review process for
>and any other synchronization primitive has got to include proofs of
>correctness. This stuff is tricky enough that I wouldn't trust any of
>code until I've seen and understood a thorough correctness proof, and
>that at least three other people familiar with proofs of concurrent
>have done the same. Not that I think correctness proofs are a panacea --
>instead, I view them as one more weapon in the bug-fighting arsenal.
Are you volunteering to organize such an effort?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk