3 ms·
From a QA perspective, I feel like you buried the lede on this Loom tool. Benchmarks are nice, but confidence is an elusive thing when it comes to non-trivial
by SloopJon 7y ago
From a QA perspective, I feel like you buried the lede on this Loom tool. Benchmarks are nice, but confidence is an elusive thing when it comes to non-trivial concurrency.
I'll be spending some time on the CDSChecker and dynamic partial-order reduction papers.
- carllerche 7y agoTrue... correctness is very important! I made mention of loom for correctness in the intro at least. The goal for this article was primarily to focus on scheduler design. I'm hoping to get posts dedicated to loom soon. It's been an indispensable tool.
- snowAbstraction 7y agoYes loom seems very important. I would interested to know how it compares with similar tools like nidhugg[1][2] for the C and C++. [1] https://github.com/nidhugg/nidhugg https://github.com/nidhugg/nidhugg [2] https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1324003/FULLTEXT01.pdf https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1324003/FULLTEXT0...
- carllerche 7y agoI skimmed the paper and it looks similar to loom. Specifically they cite CHESS and Cdschecker as prior art. Both of those are what loom is based on. I guess 2019 is the year of concurrency checking :-)