Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

README: add table with ringbuffer properties #112

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Contributor

I thought an overview of features of the ringbuffers was missing, even though the descriptions technically cover most of it. The README currently also lacks some info about where powers of two are important, so I added a bit of that here too.

I'm not quite sure what should be in here exactly and how it should look. So consider this PR a request for feedback and I'll open it as a draft.

@tertsdiepraam tertsdiepraam changed the title README: add table with type properties README: add table with ringbuffer properties Jun 8, 2023
@NULLx76
Copy link
Owner

NULLx76 commented Jun 9, 2023

Technically all the ringbuffers are no_std, just some need alloc which is actually reasonably available on embedded platforms, so might be nice to be specific about that.

@NULLx76
Copy link
Owner

NULLx76 commented Jun 9, 2023

Additionally some kind of performance comparison might be neat as well, @jonay2000 you ran some benchmarks right?

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Collaborator

yup, working on it :)

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Contributor Author

Technically all the ringbuffers are no_std, just some need alloc which is actually reasonably available on embedded platforms, so might be nice to be specific about that.

Makes sense! I'll try to fix it

@jdonszelmann
Copy link
Collaborator

See #113, based on this branch

@tertsdiepraam
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jonay2000 shall I just let you fix the table and close this then?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants