Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 3
    I didn't downvote you, but this doesn't seem to answer any of my questions. Commented Nov 27, 2017 at 18:14
  • Thanks for not downvoting. And sorry for not answering your questions. Would you mind if I ask you if you are considering to create a compliance benchmark for mutexes ? Commented Nov 28, 2017 at 0:24
  • Unlikely. And even if, I the only standard I care about is the c++ standard (although that might be the same as posix with regards to mutexes) Commented Nov 28, 2017 at 6:47
  • To qualify my previous statement: If I should come up with a good test-suite for my own mutex I'll most likely make it open source, but I very much doubt that it will have the quality or be complete enough to become an actual "compliance" benchmark - that might be something that is better handled by static analysis anyway. Commented Nov 28, 2017 at 10:10
  • I agree with you that there's not a good test suite for mutex primitives. I suppose it should come from three distinct sources: the theory of concurrent processing, the specification of a POSIX mutex, and concurrent algorithms expressed using mutexes. Do you agree with that ? Commented Nov 28, 2017 at 12:23