Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: jseigh <jseigh_es00@xemaps.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: smrproxy v2
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2024 19:48:12 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <vjg08c$319q6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vequrc$2o7qc$1@dont-email.me> <verr04$2stfq$1@dont-email.me>
 <verubk$2t9bs$1@dont-email.me> <ves78h$2ugvm$2@dont-email.me>
 <vetj1f$39iuv$1@dont-email.me> <vfh4dh$3bnuq$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfh7mg$3c2hs$1@dont-email.me> <vfm4iq$ill4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfmesn$k6mn$1@dont-email.me> <vfmf21$kavl$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfmm9a$lob3$1@dont-email.me> <vfn2di$r8ca$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfntgb$vete$1@dont-email.me> <vfp1c3$16d9f$1@dont-email.me>
 <vfpd43$186t4$1@dont-email.me> <vfpp18$1dqvu$3@dont-email.me>
 <vfrm7s$1np4q$3@dont-email.me> <vftnga$27k8k$2@dont-email.me>
 <vg9l7u$q3ee$3@dont-email.me> <vgafnd$uhgj$1@dont-email.me>
 <vje7nc$21j2c$1@dont-email.me> <vjekun$24iug$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjfm4q$2v6n4$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2024 01:48:13 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="622ae8142be8553bed4401a4ae530b4c";
	logging-data="3188550"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19BVESDWgxhxsxNHuInXisJ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fvt4kjdtB1aooXJD8xRChnbp42A=
In-Reply-To: <vjfm4q$2v6n4$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2624

On 12/12/24 16:55, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 12/12/2024 4:29 AM, jseigh wrote:
>> On 12/12/24 03:43, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2024 4:46 AM, jseigh wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hummm... If I remember correctly, you said something about using a 
>>> simple atomic exchange to pop a whole list (lock-free stack), then 
>>> simple reversing the list to get a fifo order? Do you remember any of 
>>> that way back on c.p.t?
>>>
>> That kind of stuff pre-dates c.p.t. even.
> 
> Has to. Although, it was not in the IBM principles of operation where 
> the describe their lock-free stack in an appendix, iirc... I cannot 
> remember the exact one right now. Iirc, it was under free pool 
> manipulation?

If you pop off a LIFO stack onto another LIFO, everything becomes FIFO.

Also, there's a doubly linked stack where the back links are lazily
initialized.  That seems to get reinvented every so often.