The 31 bit idea seems strange/ugly to me. How did you decide to do it that
way?
Why is it better than 32 unsigned bits? Is there some case that works with 31
bits that breaks with 32?
I think there is a case that works for 32 unsigned that doesn't work for 31.
Consider code that gets upd
> On 01/20/2023 2:11 AM PST Hal Murray wrote:
>
>
> The 31 bit idea seems strange/ugly to me. How did you decide to do it that
> way?
It is either Richard's fault or, more likely, mine. I proposed
replacing the current SHM, and I need to communicate better. My
alternate had a shared half-era co
Yo Hal!
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 02:11:29 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
> The 31 bit idea seems strange/ugly to me. How did you decide to do
> it that way?
For back compatibility.
> Why is it better than 32 unsigned bits? Is there some case that
> works with 31 bits that breaks with 32?
Yeah, 2038.
>
Yo Hal!
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 21:43:08 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
> g...@rellim.com said:
> > Sadly, that no longer works on modern CPUs with out of order
> > execution. Unless wrapped in a mutex, or atomic, and that is now a
> > no-no.
>
> Do you have a good reference for that?
Many ariticle on
Your current code has 2 1/2 memory barriers. That's the same as my 2 counter
proposal.
As long as we are mucking in this area, should we take the opportunity and do
a big jump and convert to a new way of doing things?
Support old and new SHM until we can drop old.
Use 2 counters, read onl
Yo Hal!
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 12:20:09 -0800
Hal Murray wrote:
> Your current code has 2 1/2 memory barriers. That's the same as my 2
> counter proposal.
I rather not take responsibility for the current code. Not mine.
And gpsd only has 2 threads, while ntpd has just one. The next
solution ne
