CRoaring VS ck

The PR in question seems to be https://github.com/RoaringBitmap/CRoaring/pull/446

I agree that the GitHub analyses are worse than useless, but I also think it highlights the friction between intrinsics and the program in which they appear. There probably is a better model.

Installation completed the program build successfully!! https://www.reddit.com/r/openbsd/comments/yux513/comment/iwbm72c/?context=3 I configured 2 different files in .cargo (thanx @ivan_linux for https://github.com/RoaringBitmap/CRoaring/pull/412) and .profile ( https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-bindgen/requirements.html#openbsd ) But when I try to start the program unfortunately the node not starting and I get the following errors.

I use a fake database paired with compressed bits for flags and integer compression for various other traits. They follow a navigation guide similar to wind for foliage.

I've been using CFFI to access the CRoaring C API to Roaring Bitmaps. It's been pretty easy so far. However I'm not experienced in lisp FFI, and I'm unsure of the way to go about the task of decoding a C structure used for iteration in the C CPI. The structure is as follows: ``` typedef struct roaring_uint32_iterator_s { const roaring_bitmap_t *parent; // owner int32_t container_index; // point to the current container index int32_t in_container_index; // for bitset and array container, this is out // index int32_t run_index; // for run container, this points at the run

I have a build shared library build of the C API for Roaring Bitmaps and I'm just trying to figure out the right path forward to write a lisp interface to it on sbcl.

CRoaring - C implementation of Roaring bitmaps. Apache-2.0

Maybe I'm missing something, but x is not volatile and the compiler is free to assume that it is not modified concurrently outside the bounds of C's memory model. Compilers can and do hoist out loop invariants, and https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck/commit/b54ae5c4ace9b94442bbb46858449069f566d269 seems like an example of compilers doing what you say they don't. What am I missing?

Recommend checking out http://concurrencykit.org instead.

If you're interested in how other approaches work, or how one achieves concurrency on shared mutable state without mutual exclusion, would recommend checking out concurrency kit.

There are plenty of practical solutions to the safe memory reclamation problem in C. The language just doesn't force one on you.

From epoch-based reclamation (https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck/blob/master/include/ck_..., especially with the multiplexing extension to Fraser's classic scheme), to quiescence schemes (https://liburcu.org/), or hazard pointers (https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/synchron..., or https://pvk.ca/Blog/2020/07/07/flatter-wait-free-hazard-poin...)... or even simple using a type-stable (https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin...) memory allocator.

In my experience, it's easier to write code that is resilient to hiccups in C than in Java. Solving SMR with GC only offers something close to lock-freedom when you can guarantee global GC pauses are short enough... and common techniques to bound pauses, like explicitly managed freelists land you back in the same problem space as C.

ck - Concurrency primitives, safe memory reclamation mechanisms and non-blocking data structures. BSD-2-Clause

Indeed they do, https://github.com/concurrencykit/ck