Subj : Re: double-checked locking in C
To   : comp.programming.threads
From : Joe Seigh
Date : Fri Jul 08 2005 08:24 pm

David Schwartz wrote:
> "Joe Seigh" <jseigh_01@xemaps.com> wrote in message 
> news:b-udnUEoQ6uDH1PfRVn-rg@comcast.com...
> 
> 
>>>    You are seriously arguing that the test suites give you no idea 
>>>whether programs similar to the test suites will work?
> 
> 
>>They don't prove they will work.   It's the general problem of proving a
>>program is "correct" made more difficult by a lack of formal definitions.
>>I.e. what does "correct" even mean.
> 
> 
>     We are talking about one case where you have a test suite compared to a 
> case where you don't. You are seriously arguing that an implementation test 
> suite is no help at all in making sure an implementation correctly supports 
> a standard? Is that really your position?

I'm not sure where you're going here.  What do you mean by similar?
Exactly the same?  How much of a difference is allowed  before different
results are allowed?

That raises an iteresting issue.  If I come up with a new form of synchronization
but don't provide any formal definition (which is a valid point of contention)
can I come up with a set of testcases and say that if they run it proves the
implementation is correct?  For programs which are similar to the testcases that is.
Just curious.  There's other people besides me that would be interested in the
answer here.


-- 
Joe Seigh

When you get lemons, you make lemonade.
When you get hardware, you make software.

.