15 Dec
2009
15 Dec
'09
4:05 p.m.
Hi,
On Tuesday 15 December 2009 19:33:18 Gabriel M. Beddingfield wrote:
On Tue, 15 Dec 2009, Tim Blechmann wrote:
Why should a single-reader-single-writer ring-buffer need atomic operations?
The reader increments the read-pointer (which doesn't have to be a pointer)
last when its finished, the writer increments the write-pointer last when it
has written. All other access is read-only. No problems. (At least in my app.)
increment = read the old value, add one, modulo (or bit-mask) the size, write
the new value
Arnold
you should add
memory barriers, when reading or writing to the reader or
Actually, his
implementation is similar to ringbuffer.c in
libjack... and assumes that reading and writing can happen
atomically (as was pointed out by someone else) -- which can
be managed with single reader / single writer
requirement.[a]
Unless I've misunderstood the code, ringbuffer.c is /not/
using special atomic operations.