Re: [boost] [context review] Updated vote

Subject: Re: [boost] [context review] Updated vote
From: Vicente BOTET (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-29 02:09:10

> Message du 28/03/11 16:15
> De : "Oliver Kowalke" 
> A : boost_at_[hidden]
> Copie à : 
> Objet : Re: [boost] [context review] Updated vote
> 

> 
> Am 28.03.2011 15:46, schrieb Giovanni Piero Deretta:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There is a lack of reviews so far and the review deadline is getting
> > close; as I really, really would like to see a context switching
> > library into boost in one way or another, I would like to change my
> > vote from a negative to conditional acceptance. These are the
> > conditions:
> >
> > - A C (or low level), light weight API is publicly exposed and documented
> > - Context is made movable, without additional memory allocation for
> > non legacy (i.e. ucontext) implementations.
> > - The documentation is polished and expanded with a discussion on
> > context switching and use cases.
> >
> > I do not think these points are particularly contentious as Oliver has
> > already stated that at least the first two is in his TODO list and
> > that he will make context movable.
> >
> > Of course I would like Oliver to address the other points raised by me
> > and others reviewers.
> >
> > I also encourage Oliver to engage more in discussions with the
> > reviewers; the mail threads just died off after a few replies and not
> > all issues raised were discussed.
> >
>
> Hello Giovanni,
> 
> thank you for your review (and of course all others) - it really helps 
> to get the lib shaped (I got very view responses before the review).
> 
> I've started to modify the lib (you can take a look at 
> git://gitorious.org/boost-dev/boost-dev.git, branch context-dev) in 
> order to address the issues raised by the review.
> If I believe all issues are addressed we can start a mini-review (or 
> I'll send you and the other reviews an eMail for checking the new 
> variant for discussion).
> 
> best regards,
> Oliver

Hi Oliver,

as suggested by Giovanni, could you comment more deeply some issues as interaction of stack release and unwinding. This seems to be a safety hole on the design and it will be great if after the review we reach a consensus on how to solve it.

Please post here all the modification you want to apply to the library so people can make comments without been forced to see you private repository.

Thanks,
Vicente