I’m jealous of people, who have to write ring buffers for work.

It feels like 90% swe jobs these days are about writing CRUD wrappers.

Sorry.

Mostly Type 1 and overflow is a diagnostic log at most. Losing all stale unprocessed data and leaving a ready empty buffer behind is often the desired outcome.

Type 3 is probably banned on most codebases because of the integer overflow.

	▲	zephen 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Losing all stale unprocessed data and leaving a ready empty buffer behind is often the desired outcome. Yeah, the Type 3 example could conceivably make it so that you intermix old and new data if you overflow, rather than just dumping a whole buffer. Especially when your full() function checks for exact equality, like the one in the article does. And if you remove the asserts, and then somehow underflow? God help you. You'll be pulling 4 billion entries you never actually stored out of the buffer, just repeating previously stored garbage over and over. > Type 3 is probably banned on most codebases because of the integer overflow. Not only this, but the purported code reduction benefits associated with type 3 are only superficial, and won't actually appear in any assembly listing.
	▲	Krssst 3 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Unsigned integer arithmetic operations don't overflow but are done modulo 2^n (https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/operator_arithmetic...). The author does use unsigned integers so I don't think there is a problem there. Signed integer overflow is definitely a problem however. Something as simple as incrementing a user-provided int can lead to UB (if the user provides INT_MAX).
	▲	RealityVoid 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Banned is a bit strong, maybe discouraged. MISRA might yell but it's valid technique, IMO, unsigned integer overflow will be fine.

▲

Neywiny 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And yet here I sit, writing ring buffers, and never thinking about this idea. Probably because of the power of two issue. Which isn't actually a problem because as he points out, who would do that? But it makes me think that it's a restriction that it just isn't.

But in all honesty, look for more embedded jobs, then. We can certainly use the help.

▲

nathan_douglas 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

What do you work with (if you don't mind answering)? I'm looking for a change and like low-level stuff about as much as I like any other level. I've done some cycle-accurate NES emulation and VM implementation stuff - I'm not much of a DSA guy but performance and efficiency appeal to me.

	▲	Neywiny 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I work with pretty much everything (except GPUs I guess). Embedded is extremely relative. To some, embedded means a rack mount server that's idk embedded in a vehicle instead of a datacenter. That's not me. To others, embedded means a 4-bit low power, mask-rom fed micro inside a sensor IC. That's also not me. So I work with microcontrollers of various vendors, I do FPGA with hard and soft processors, recently did just past the smoke test through embedded Linux on a SoC, and I've done plenty of desktop code on Linux and Windows for interfacing. I get to work with a wide range of devices and a wide range of tasks for them. Might not pay as much but my goodness is it fun

▲

ekropotin 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

For some unexplainable reason, CRUD job’s pay is better than embedded, on average.

	▲	Neywiny 3 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I mean idk, I'm living comfortably and as the adage says, not working a day in my life. But if you're at a spot where you need the pay more than you want to write ring buffers, I understand.
	▲	IsTom 3 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Probably there are less people excited to make another CRUD app than to write embedded code.

▲

RealityVoid 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Jokes on me, when I need them, I don't feel like writing them so I just pick up an old one and tweak it. Or just tell Claude to build me one and it one shots it.