This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Consensus: data-race freedom as default for glibc code
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, GLIBC Devel <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 16:23:36 +0100
- Subject: Re: Consensus: data-race freedom as default for glibc code
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1414797659 dot 10085 dot 406 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <1416508239 dot 1771 dot 61 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <546F0733 dot 70304 at redhat dot com> <1416608824 dot 1771 dot 72 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <547340BD dot 4060306 at redhat dot com>
On Mon, 2014-11-24 at 15:29 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 11:27 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> I agree with the idea, but I don't particularly like the term âdata race
> >> freedomâ.
> > That's what the language standard and the language committee use, so
> > that's why I picked that term.
> I know, it's just that it's sometimes used differently in the sense that
> you don't know precisely what value you will read, but it's from a
> specific set, and the algorithm can cope with any chosen value.
> > What would you propose to improve the wording? Stress that this
> > statement is about glibc's implementation only, not making a statement
> > about how glibc is used?
> Perhaps something like this?
> > * Parallel algorithms implemented in glibc itself will be free from
> > data races (as defined by C11 and its memory model) by default.
I changed it to:
* Concurrent code in glibc is free from data races (as defined by C11
and its memory model) by default.