This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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 operations on the ARM

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com, rearnsha at arm dot com, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 13:39:31 -0400
Subject: Re: Atomic operations on the ARM
References: <20021003112001.1d267abd.bkoz@redhat.com> <200210031625.g93GP1L20669@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> <20021003113115.01f93c38.bkoz@redhat.com>

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 11:31:15AM -0500, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> 
> > Sure, but if they don't work then there's not much point in them being 
> > 'light-weight'!
> 
> If they don't work, they shouldn't exist, and the generic routines
> (which do nothing, and are not atomic) should be used, period.
> 
> Perhaps the arm configuration should just use the generics, hmm?

This doesn't make sense.  We have generic threading locks; yes, it's
heavyweight; but it works.  Isn't correctness important?

Richard, does the problem with using swp in this context also affect
ARM/Linux?  Glibc appears to use the just about the same code for
atomic operations.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Atomic operations on the ARM
  - From: Richard Earnshaw

References:
- Re: Atomic operations on the ARM
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik
- Re: Atomic operations on the ARM
  - From: Richard Earnshaw
- Re: Atomic operations on the ARM
  - From: Benjamin Kosnik

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