On Tuesday 02 August 2011 19:28:08 Phil Endecott wrote:
Helge Bahmann wrote:
Hi folks,
from the comments to Boost.Lockfree I understand that you consider a non-reviewed Boost.Atomic as a "blocker"? I apologize that I have not pushed forward for review (considering that "it just works for me", and considering the length of the review queue...)
It's not really a queue, and I believe Atomic should jump in at the front.
, but if you consider it blocking please just let me know what I would need to do to clear the path.
Get a review manager.
What I will do shortly is to provide and uptodate package containing several fixes, several contributed by others (they are in the repo, but not in any release archive) as well as some missing bits to more closely match latest C++0X draft.
The big sore point is still support for the various flavours of VC -- I know that there are (especially older) versions for which it is not working, but I am lacking test systems, so if you are affected please let me know and I will do my best to resolve the issues.
Sorry, I can't help with VC.
The thing that I believe is missing is tests. Do you have any thoughts about that?
Well, I have a few simple tests for atomicity only, they are hand-built and I am working to push them into the boost build system. I don't know how useful the tests are though -- while on a true SMP platform (ppc and x86 being available to me) they manage to fail quite realibly if I intentionally break something (like removing "lock" prefixes, or replacing stwcx. with an unconditional store), but it takes ages (if it works at all) to produce test failures on non-SMP (all threads to the same CPU). I have not yet looked into writing something for memory ordering tests, but arguably that's both even more important and more difficult to reproduce failures. The other aspect that I want to provide is compile-time test for API completeness. I suspect there are a few small things missing still. Best regards Helge