This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: atomic accesses


On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 10:50:17PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > AFAIK the only reason we don't break this rule is that doing so would
> > be grossly inefficient; there's nothing to stop any gcc back-end with
> > (say) seriously slow DImode writes from using two SImode writes instead.
> 
> I'm fairly sure ARM already breaks this "rule".
> 

Hm, just out  of curiosity, does not Java require  32-bit stores to be
atomic?  I do not  know Java well but I think it  does.  Do we observe
this language-specific rule on ARM then? Do we do it because 32 bit is
small enough or do we have a mechanism for that?

Martin


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