Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree] ringbuffer
From: Rich E (reakinator_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-07-08 22:54:29
Thanks for the clarification, that makes perfect sense. Good to know about
being able to configure memory usage. I look forward to trying these out
in the coming days..
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Tim Blechmann <tim_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> First off, all Boost.Lockfree tests in trunk are passing for me on clang
> >> 4.0 on OS X, hurrah! Thank you Tim for working on this for so long...
> >> I'm running through the examples now, only with the outdated
> >> as a guide (more than a couple years old). I cannot find the ringbuffer
> >> container - was it renamed or removed altogether during the review
> >> I notice spsc_queue acts awefully like a ringbuffer, and it's
> >> implementation contains many
> > ... ringbuffer-like classes - is this the decided class for creating a
> > lockfree buffer that reuses memory?
> the ringbuffer was renamed to spsc_queue: internal data structure is a
> ringbuffer, but it models a single-producer single-consumer wait-free
> queue. so the name reflects the properties rather than the
> implementation. iirc the same data structure is called `bounded queue'
> in shavit/herlihy, fifo in the linux kernel and ringbuffer in many
> audio-related projects.
> btw, all data structures in boost.lockfree can be configured to reuse
> memory in order to be usable in systems where you want to avoid memory