> I work with PD when I want to make music more than I want to do advanced CS. > And then there's the question of the marginal utility of PD having its own > implementation of a ringbuffer, but I will leave that for all of you who have > dedicated far more time than I to the maintenance of this project.
...please don't let that stop you. I want to dedicate more time to making music myself! > To be more specific: the libpd ringbuffer uses atomic read-modify-write > operations (with dummy arguments) instead of atomic loads and stores. > Again, these are hacks from pre-C11 times. Unfortunately, the C11 > version follows this pattern instead of using the more appropriate > atomic_load[_explicit] and atomic_store_[explicit] functions. Also, it > implicitly uses the default memory ordering (memory_order_seq_cst) for > all atomic operations, which is much stronger than what we actually need. That's my fault. I did not have much time when I did that update, so I just found the equivalent functions without changing anything to be conservative. If you have suggestions for improvement, I am open to it. We can also ping Peter. -------- Dan Wilcox danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
_______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
