Re: [container] Proposal for ring queues

From: degski (degski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-05-25 10:04:21

On Sun, 24 May 2020 at 22:38, Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
wrote:

> On 22/05/2020 10:17, Andrey Semashev wrote:
> > Some time ago I have proposed to include ring_queue and small_ring_queue
> > containers to Boost.Container:
> >
> > https://github.com/boostorg/container/pull/121
> >
> > The ring queues work similarly to std::queue with the main difference
> > being that they use a ring buffer internally to store elements. The
> > small_ring_queue also allows to allocate a static storage for a fixed
> > amount of elements. The benefit of this is that dynamic memory
> > allocations can be practically avoided when the number of enqueued
> > elements does not exceed some limit.
>
> Boost.Lockfree [1] already contains such a queue (which operates similar
> to a ring-buffer when set to fixed capacity, but can be configured to be
> dynamic).
>

I reacted earlier in this thread and was erroneously babbling on about
unbounded circular lists. You will say I'm a lousy reader, I on the other
hand could not imagine you would not use
https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/docs/help/reference/containers_overview/concurrent_bounded_queue_cls.html
for one moment (i.e. that that problem was covered). Is Boost.Lockfree
being developed?

degski
-- 
@systemdeg
"We value your privacy, click here!" Sod off! - degski
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite
world is either a madman or an economist" - Kenneth E. Boulding
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" - Edward
P. Abbey