Cheng & LayerCrafter
Cheng
Hey, I heard about a new static analyzer that claims to catch concurrency bugs. How about we run it on our legacy code and see if it can spot any hidden race conditions?
LayerCrafter
Sure, but before we fire it up, let’s inventory the code: find all shared mutable state, lock usage, and any platform‑specific quirks. Static tools love to flag things that don’t actually race. Give me the tool’s version, its concurrency model, and a list of the modules we’re targeting. Then we can compare its findings against a fresh code‑review audit and see if it’s catching real problems or just blowing a fuse.
Cheng
Sure thing. The analyzer is StaticRace 2.4.1, it models threads via POSIX threads and lock acquisition graphs, so it’ll look for shared memory access patterns that could conflict on any mutex or spinlock. We’re targeting the three core modules that touch the shared state: user‑session, order‑processor, and inventory‑sync. Once you run it, let’s cross‑check its hits with a manual audit of those modules. Good luck, and watch out for those “false positives” that just love a good mystery.
LayerCrafter
Running StaticRace 2.4.1 now. I’ll flag every hit that touches shared memory in user‑session, order‑processor, or inventory‑sync. Then we’ll line‑by‑line verify each claim against the actual lock graph and data‑flow. If the analyzer flags a mutex that’s never actually contended, we’ll ignore it—static analysis loves to be paranoid. Keep your eye on the false‑positive list; that’s usually where the real work is.
Cheng
Sounds good, hit me with the report and let’s line‑by‑line scrub the flags—ignore the phantom locks, focus on the real shared accesses, and then we’ll compare that with a human review.