Re: [boost] boost::semaphore

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 

 >this
 >and any other synchronization primitive has got to include proofs of
 >correctness.  This stuff is tricky enough that I wouldn't trust any of 
the
 >code until I've seen and understood a thorough correctness proof, and 
know
 >that at least three other people familiar with proofs of concurrent 
systems
 >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?

--Beman