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. Tony On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
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 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
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost