From owner-freebsd-arch Mon Nov 12 16:42:50 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72EDC37B417; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 16:42:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (ak82hjs7hex92j@fledge.pr.watson.org [192.0.2.3]) by fledge.watson.org (8.11.6/8.11.5) with SMTP id fAD0gWB37739; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:42:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 19:42:31 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: John Baldwin Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org, Matthew Dillon , Terry Lambert Subject: Re: cur{thread/proc}, or not. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, John Baldwin wrote: > > My recollection is that there was some concern about the size of the unit > > of atomic operation across platforms. I may not recall correctly, but my > > understanding was that some platforms substantially limited the potential > > size of the target of the atomic operation to less than the normal > > arithmetic unit size. Again, subject to the fallibility of my > > recollection, the maximum unit for atomic operations on Sparc64 was > > 24-bit, despite the native register size being 64-bit. > > No, that was on sparc32, not sparc64. All of our current architectures > would be fine with it. Oh, good. I couldn't remember (hence some waffling) -- I have no problem with this. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Project robert@fledge.watson.org NAI Labs, Safeport Network Services To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message