From owner-freebsd-arch  Thu Oct 12 19:19:37 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from smtp04.primenet.com (smtp04.primenet.com [206.165.6.134])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2BD6337B502; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:19:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id TAA27707;
	Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:16:43 -0700 (MST)
Received: from usr05.primenet.com(206.165.6.205)
 via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAUlaW.1; Thu Oct 12 19:16:35 2000
Received: (from tlambert@localhost)
	by usr05.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id TAA03232;
	Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:19:20 -0700 (MST)
From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
Message-Id: <200010130219.TAA03232@usr05.primenet.com>
Subject: Re: we need atomic_t
To: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:19:20 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert),
	cp@bsdi.com (Chuck Paterson), msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith),
	arch@FreeBSD.ORG
In-Reply-To: <20001012142257.S272@fw.wintelcom.net> from "Alfred Perlstein" at Oct 12, 2000 02:22:57 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

[ ... atomic_t ... ]

> My unspoken minimum precision was going to be 24 bits, for situations
> where that wasn't enough the idea was to provide a atomic64_t, but
> only if the demand was reasonable.

How would you handle this type on 386, 486, and Pentium machines,
if somone used it in code?  Or would its use be limited to 64 bit
architectures, instead of limiting FreeBSD to 64 bit (or higher)
architectures?


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message