Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree] review
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 04:47:07
> I apologize if this has already been covered, but I don't see anything in
> the documentation about which platforms and compilers this has been tested
> on. These algorithms are extremely susceptible to compiler and processor
boost.lockfree should NOT be prone to compilers/processors, mainly because it
relies to boost.atomic for atomic operations and memory barriers.
will include a page about tested platforms/compilers.
> Defining uint fixed most of these, but bench_1.cpp also appears to be out
> of date?
ouch ... bench_1.cpp should have been removed before the review. but i should
replace uint with boost::uint32_t.
> Of course I also have my lack of understanding of boost build
> library linking to contend with. Hope to try again later.
btw, the tarball also includes a cmake-based build system.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk