* Lumiera source code always was copyrighted by individual contributors
* there is no entity "Lumiera.org" which holds any copyrights
* Lumiera source code is provided under the GPL Version 2+
== Explanations ==
Lumiera as a whole is distributed under Copyleft, GNU General Public License Version 2 or above.
For this to become legally effective, the ''File COPYING in the root directory is sufficient.''
The licensing header in each file is not strictly necessary, yet considered good practice;
attaching a licence notice increases the likeliness that this information is retained
in case someone extracts individual code files. However, it is not by the presence of some
text, that legally binding licensing terms become effective; rather the fact matters that a
given piece of code was provably copyrighted and published under a license. Even reformatting
the code, renaming some variables or deleting parts of the code will not alter this legal
situation, but rather creates a derivative work, which is likewise covered by the GPL!
The most relevant information in the file header is the notice regarding the
time of the first individual copyright claim. By virtue of this initial copyright,
the first author is entitled to choose the terms of licensing. All further
modifications are permitted and covered by the License. The specific wording
or format of the copyright header is not legally relevant, as long as the
intention to publish under the GPL remains clear. The extended wording was
based on a recommendation by the FSF. It can be shortened, because the full terms
of the license are provided alongside the distribution, in the file COPYING.
''In theory,'' the random number generators are in no way threadsafe,
neither the old `rand()`, nor the mersenne twister of the C++ standard.
However, since all we want is some arbitrarily diffused numbers,
chances are that this issue can be safely ignored; because a random
number computation broken by concurrency will most likely generate --
well, a garbled number or "randomly" corrupted internal state.
Validating this reasoning by an empiric investigation seems advisable though.
* most usages are drop-in replacements
* occasionally the other convenience functions can be used
* verify call-paths from core code to identify usages
* ensure reseeding for all tests involving some kind of randomness...
__Note__: some tests were not yet converted,
since their usage of randomness is actually not thread-safe.
This problem existed previously, since also `rand()` is not thread safe,
albeit in most cases it is possible to ignore this problem, as
''garbled internal state'' is also somehow „random“
Since the decision was taken to retain support for this special feature,
and even extend it to allow passing values, the additional functionality
should be documented in the test. Doing so also highlighted subtle problems
with argument binding.
While it would be straight forward from an implementation POV
to just expose both variants on the API (as the C++ standard does),
it seems prudent to enforce the distinction, and to highlight the
auto-detaching behaviour as the preferred standard case.
Creating worker threads just for one computation and joining the results
seemed like a good idea 30 years ago; today we prefer Futures or asynchronous
messaging to achieve similar results in a robust and performant way.
ThreadJoinable can come in handy however for writing unit tests, were
the controlling master thread has to wait prior to perform verification.
So the old design seems well advised in this respect and will be retained
The investigation for #1279 leads to the following conclusions
- the features and the design of our custom thread-wrapper
almost entirely matches the design chosen meanwhile by the C++ committee
- the implementation provided by the standard library however uses
modern techniques (especially Atomics) and is more precisely worked out
than our custom implementation was.
- we do not need an *active* threadpool with work-assignment,
rather we'll use *active* workers and a *passive* pool,
which was easy to implement based on C++17 features
==> decision to drop our POSIX based custom implementation
and to retrofit the Thread-wrapper as a drop-in replacement
+++ start this refactoring by moving code into the Library
+++ create a copy of the Threadwrapper-code to build and test
the refactorings while the application itself still uses
existing code, until the transition is complete
- the tests covering threadind support and object monitors
are located in the backend test-library and linked against liblumierabackend.so
- some fundamental facilities of proc-layer moved from the library tree
into the basic components tree, since *testing* them requires at least
to link against liblumieracommon.so
to make them stand out more prominently, some entity comments
where started with a line of starts. Unfortunately, doxygen
(and javadoc) only recogise comments which are started exactly
with /**
This caused quite some comments to be ignored by doxygen.
Credits to Hendrik Boom for spotting this problem!
A workaround is to end the line of stars with *//**
the buildsystem will now pick up and link
all test cases according to the layer, e.g.
backend tests will automatically be linked
against the backend + library solely.
2013-01-07 05:43:01 +01:00
Renamed from tests/lib/thread-wrapper-join-test.cpp (Browse further)
