[Review] Lockfree review: two more days left
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
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@gmail.com> 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@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users
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?
there seem to be a bigger discussion on the boost-dev list, but if you feel more comfortable to post on the user list, your review won't be ignored. i am happy about every review and don't really care, which list it is posted on! btw, both lists can be accessed via gmane's nntp service, so i think you can post via nntp, if you want to avoid subscribing to a high-volume mailinglist. cheers, tim
participants (3)
-
Brian Budge -
Hartmut Kaiser -
Tim Blechmann