[boost] [Review] Lockfree review: two more days left

Subject: [boost] [Review] Lockfree review: two more days left
From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 09:30:56

Hi all,

We have two more days left for the review of Tim Blechmann's Lockfree
library. If you're interested in this library, please consider contributing
a review!

Please see the original (slightly corrected) announcement below:

-----------------------------------------------------

About the library:

Boost.Lockfree provides implementations of lock-free data structures.
Lock-free data structures can be accessed by multiple threads without the
necessity of blocking synchronization primitives such as guards. Lock-free
data structures can be used in real-time systems, where blocking algorithms
may lead to high worst-case execution times, to avoid priority inversion, or
to increase the scalability for multi-processor machines. 

The following data structures are provided:

- boost::lockfree::fifo, a lock-free fifo queue 
- boost::lockfree::stack, a lock-free stack 
- boost::lockfree::ringbuffer, a wait-free single-producer/single-consumer
ringbuffer.

The library is accessible from here:
http://tim.klingt.org/boost_lockfree.tar.gz.

Boost.Lockfree depends on C++0x atomics. They are not well supported with
current compilers yet. For this reason Boost.Lockfree depends on the
*unreviewed* Boost.Atomic library, that emulates C++0x atomics for C++98.
This review is about Boost.Lockfree and not about Boost.Atomic, although it
is included in the tarball and the git repository.

If Boost.Lockfree will be accepted, it won't be merged into trunk before
Boost.Atomic is accepted.

---------------------------------------------------

Please always state in your review, whether you think the library should be
accepted as a Boost library!

Additionally please consider giving feedback on the following general
topics:

- What is your evaluation of the design?
- What is your evaluation of the implementation?
- What is your evaluation of the documentation?
- What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
- Did you try to use the library?  With what compiler?  Did you have any
problems?
- How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A quick
reading? In-depth study?
- Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?

Regards Hartmut
Review Manager