Matthew Flatt ec27cbfd90 fix problems related to futures and is-list flags on pairs ... Although a future thread used an atomic compare-and-swap to set "is a list" or "not a list" flag on pairs via the JIT-implemented `list?', the hashing function in the runtime thread did not; as a result, it might be possible to lose a hash code due to cache inconsistency (although I'm not sure it's actually possible, and I couldn't trigger a problem with a test). Most of the changes are related to using an atomic compare-and-swap when setting a hash code, as well as clean-ups to related code. Processor-count tests avoid using atomic compare-and-swap on uniprocessors, which might not support the relevant machine instructions. As significantly, the compare-and-swap operation for the JIT-implemented `list?' did not actually set flags on a pair that has a hash code. This could lead to `list?' tests that were not constant time (but only if the relevant pair's `eq?' hash code had been used previously).		2011-07-31 04:43:24 -06:00
..
future.rkt	Deleted junk code that was commented out in the futures test suite	2011-07-14 19:44:19 -06:00
list-flags.rkt	fix problems related to futures and is-list flags on pairs	2011-07-31 04:43:24 -06:00
random-future.rkt	Some random ".ss" -> ".rkt"s	2010-05-17 05:58:19 -04:00