> By the way, on a related note, data races themselves are easier to reproduce than the visible negative consequences of those races on the execution of that pr

> By the way, on a related note, data races themselves are easier to reproduce than the visible negative consequences of those races on the execution of that program. Perhaps, but a data race by itself isn't sufficiently loud to catch my attention (no idea about yours), unless it consistently has visible consequences during debugging - preferably not too long after the data race itself takes place. > That is to say, we can [emphasis mine] determine that some data is being accessed without a consistently held lock even when that access is working fine by dumb luck. By “we”, do you mean human beings or computers? And, by “can”, do you mean “in theory” or “in practice”? Also, “only when we're lucky” or “reliably”? > We don't need an accident to prove that racing was going on, in other words. What I want to prove is the opposite - that there are no races going on.