MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107081217 · doi:10.1002/spe.2925

Advanced control‐flow and concurrency in C∀

2020· article· en· W3107081217 on OpenAlexafffund
Thierry Delisle, Peter A. Buhr

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware Practice and Experience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceConcurrencyPOSIX ThreadsMutual exclusionProgramming languageControl flowConcurrency controlCompilerSynchronization (alternating current)ProgrammerConcurrent object-oriented programmingConcurrent computingDeadlockException handlingNon-lock concurrency controlDistributed computingReactive programmingDistributed concurrency controlProgramming paradigmThread (computing)Inductive programming

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary C∀ is a polymorphic, nonobject‐oriented, concurrent, backwards compatible extension of the C programming language. This paper discusses the design philosophy and implementation of its advanced control‐flow and concurrent/parallel features, along with the supporting runtime written in C∀. These features are created from scratch as ISO C has only low‐level and/or unimplemented concurrency, so C programmers continue to rely on library approaches like pthreads. C∀ introduces modern language‐level control‐flow mechanisms, like generators, coroutines, user‐level threading, and monitors for mutual exclusion and synchronization. The runtime provides significant programmer simplification and safety by eliminating spurious wakeup and monitor barging. The runtime also ensures multiple monitors can be safely acquired in a deadlock‐free way, and this feature is fully integrated with all monitor synchronization mechanisms. All control‐flow features integrate with the C∀ polymorphic type‐system and exception handling, while respecting the expectations and style of C programmers. Experimental results show comparable performance of the new features with similar mechanisms in other concurrent programming languages.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoftware Practice and ExperienceSame topicParallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207