This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64

From: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
To: Patrick MARLIER <patrick dot marlier at unine dot ch>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, FELBER Pascal <pascal dot felber at unine dot ch>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 09:43:03 -0400
Subject: Re: [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64
References: <20100322160125.GA11335@redhat.com> <4BA7A454.9020504@redhat.com> <20100322221447.GA3067@redhat.com> <4BAC714E.50307@unine.ch>

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 09:33:18AM +0100, Patrick MARLIER wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> In 32 bit version, esi (4th parameter, ie timeout) is set to 0 even
> if it is wait or wake.
> So I guess you might do the same in 64bit. Otherwise, your previous
> patch seems ok if you want to avoid the useless operation in case of
> wake operation.

Yeah, I realized that later.  However, Richard and I decided to remove
the futex support altogether, because there's little gain because of the
busy loop on s_lock.  Details and patch later today.

Aldy

References:
- [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64
  - From: Aldy Hernandez
- Re: [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64
  - From: Aldy Hernandez
- Re: [trans-mem] fix futex syscall for x86_64
  - From: Patrick MARLIER

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]