Re: [LAD] a *simple* ring buffer, comments pls?

From: Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden>
Date: Wed Jul 13 2011 - 17:36:23 EEST

On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Gabriel Beddingfield
<gabrbedd@email-addr-hidden> wrote:

>> i don't see why this is needed. its trivial to demonstrate on a piece
>> of paper that in a system with weak memory ordering constraints,
>> absence of a memory barrier is incorrect for any code with coupled
>> data values (e.g. a read index and read data). it doesn't matter if
>> this doesn't happen very often. you don't need a simulator of any
>> given CPU+memory model - its just demonstrably incorrect.
>
> "Beware of bugs in the above code -- I've only proved it correct not
> actually run it." - Knuth

funny, but just so that we're clear - I'm not suggesting that a paper
proof of correctness is enough, but I am suggesting that a paper proof
of incorrectness *is* enough.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Wed Jul 13 20:15:02 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Jul 13 2011 - 20:15:02 EEST