Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree] review
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-29 19:36:03
on Fri Jul 29 2011, Gordon Woodhull <gordon-AT-woodhull.com> wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Tim Blechmann wrote:
>>> IMO the big question with a library like this is not so much the design as
>>> the correctness. What can we do as reviewers to verify the correctness,
>>> assuming we are not lockfree gurus ourselves? Go back to the original
>>> sources. So I did; see below.
>> well, there is one problem about the publications done by the lock-free gurus:
>> they don't care about the implementation, but assume a sequencially consistent
>> memory model, so they don't need to care about the required memory barriers or
>> the like ...
> Yes. Your rationale that the default options for atomic operations
> should ensure sequential consistency makes sense to me (from my
> limited experience).
Personally I never understood how sequential consistency could be much
of a help in reasoning about multithreaded programs... but that's just
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk