Re: [boost] [Boost.Lockfree] Interest in a ringbuffer class

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Lockfree] Interest in a ringbuffer class
From: Gavin Lambert (gavinl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-01-26 18:05:30

On 26/01/2017 23:56, Raphaël Londeix wrote:
> That's right, but that's not the main selling point. The idea is to be able
> to store raw buffers of different sizes, without any external storage or
> indirection. When you do
>
>     buffer* buf = rb.start_write(10);
>
> The variable `buf' is stored inside the ring buffer, so that the commit
> operation only change the position of the write cursor. One possible
> way to do that is to define buffer as
>
>     struct buffer {
>         size_type size;
>         byte_type data[];
>     };

That sounds a bit different from what I was imagining.  I have a 
somewhat similar ringbuffer interface (in terms of separated reserve and 
commit) but it assumes single-copy inside the methods; it never exposes 
internal buffer memory (because zero-copy gets tricky if you want to 
span the ringbuffer's wrap point).

I've only ever used it as a block-of-bytes buffer, typically in cases 
where at least one end doesn't care about message boundaries and can 
just process bytes in arbitrary chunks.