Subject: Re: [boost] [1.53] request to merge lockfree (c++11 only)
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-16 07:25:22
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:39 PM, Tim Blechmann <tim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> i'm not sure about the state of atomic, as the original author hardly
>>> reacts on emails and atm, i don't have the time to adopt it ...
>> Are you aware of the blockers that prevent Boost.Atomic from being
>> merged to release? Perhaps there are minor problems and we could help
>> the author to resolve them and merge Boost.Atomic ourselves.
> i'm not aware of any further issues with boost.atomic. most of the
> issues that have been raised during the review have been resolved. the
> only remaining thing is the fallback for shared-memory, but according to
> the standard, the behavior is not really defined ... and helge
> originally wanted to provide a version that supports shared memory to be
> included into boost.interprocess ...
Interprocess atomics are not the blocker for Boost.Atomic, it can be
added later. Aside from Boost.Test-related errors and tester issues,
tests look green in trunk (although I didn't check each one of them).
So unless there is something non-obvious (Helge, could you confirm
this?), I'd simply merge Boost.Atomic to release as it is.
> for 1.52 i considered adopting boost.atomic, but ran out of time and
> atm, i don't have the resources to work on this, either ... but if you'd
> volunteer to help, it would be really great!
I thought Boost.Lockfree already uses Boost.Atomic, doesn't it? What
needs to be changed?