Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Lockfree review: today (July 28th) is the last day
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-31 16:14:37
I'm travelling this week, but still hope to take another look at the
implementation - I promised I would. Probably some night when I'm
stuck in the hotel room.
Quick overall - I think it should be accepted. What I've seen so far
(during boostcon) looked good. I suspect at most all I'm going to do
is find some small bug - that doesn't mean it shouldn't be accepted,
it would just mean that the bug should be fixed.
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Hartmut Kaiser
> Today is the last day of the review of Tim Blechmann's Lockfree library. If
> you're interested in this library, please consider contributing a review!
> If you need more time, please contact me privately.
> 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
> The library is accessible from here:
> 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
> - 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
> - 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
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk