Merge branch 'thread-tooling' of https://github.com/tituswinters/CppCoreGuidelines into tituswinters-thread-tooling

CppCoreGuidelines.md

@@ -11697,16 +11697,40 @@ this can be a security risk.
 
 ##### Enforcement
 
-Some is possible, do at least something.
+When possible, rely on tooling enforcement, but be aware that any tooling
-There are commercial and open-source tools that try to address this problem, but static tools often have many false positives and run-time tools often have a significant cost.
+solution has costs and blind spots. Defense in depth (multiple tools, multiple
-We hope for better tools.
+approaches) is particularly valuable here.
 
-Help the tools:
+In the realm of static enforcement,
+both [clang](http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSafetyAnalysis.html) and some
+older versions of [GCC](https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/ThreadSafetyAnnotation) have
+some support for static annotation of thread safety properties. Consistent use
+of this technique turns many classes of thread-safety errors into compile-time
+errors. The annotations are generally local (marking a particular member
+variable as guarded by a particular mutex), and are usually easy to
+learn. However, as with many static tools, it can often present false
+negatives - cases that should have been caught but were allowed.
 
-* less global data
+Clang's [Thread Sanitizer](http://clang.llvm.org/docs/ThreadSanitizer.html) (aka
-* fewer `static` variables
+TSAN) is a powerful example of dynamic tools: it changes the build and execution
-* more use of stack memory (and don't pass pointers around too much)
+of your program to add bookkeeping on memory access, absolutely identifying data
-* more immutable data (literals, `constexpr`, and `const`)
+races in a given execution of your binary. The cost for this is both memory
+(5-10x in most cases) and CPU slowdown (2-20x). Dynamic tools like this are best
+when applied to integration tests, canary pushes, or unittests that operate on
+multiple threads. Workload matters: When TSAN identifies a problem, it is
+effectively always an actual data race, but it can only identify races seen in a
+given execution.
+
+There are many other tools, both commercial and open-source. Thread safety is
+challenging, often getting the better of experienced programmers: tooling is an
+important strategy to mitigate those risks.
+
+There are other ways you can mitigate the chance of data races:
+
+* Avoid global data
+* Avoid `static` variables
+* More use of value types on the stack (and don't pass pointers around too much)
+* More use of immutable data (literals, `constexpr`, and `const`)
 
 ### <a name="Rconc-data"></a>CP.3: Minimize explicit sharing of writable data
 

scripts/hunspell/isocpp.dic

@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
 '
 0xFF0000
 0b0101'0101
+10x
 '14
+20x
 2D
 2K
 2ndEdition
@@ -69,6 +71,7 @@ CComPtr
 cerr
 chrono
 cin
+Clang's
 class'
 clib
 Cline99
@@ -492,6 +495,7 @@ toolchains
 TotallyOrdered
 TP
 tradeoff
+TSAN
 TSs
 tt
 typeid