Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:14 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Subject: Re: Atomic breakage? Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101171400210.3074-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <3A64AA23.30035A1C@elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Julian Elischer wrote: > Bruce Evans wrote: > > I bother with 64-bit longs whether I need to or not :-). They get used on > > i386's mainly in old code and interfaces that don't use typedefs. > > Hopefully 64-bit scalars will never need to be accessed atomically. > > Too late. > > Many statistics in interfaces (i.e. bytes transmitted) are already 64 bit > words. These don't use atomic operations (hint: no 64-bit atomic operations are implemented on i386's). If they need to be atomic, then they must use locks. Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0101171400210.3074-100000>