Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Lockfree review: two more days left

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Lockfree review: two more days left
From: Brian Budge (brian.budge_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 13:01:08

Hi Hartmut -

Can I respond on the boost users list, or do I need to sign up for the
developers list in order to submit a review?

  Brian

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Hartmut Kaiser
<hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Boost-users mailing list
> Boost-users_at_[hidden]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
>