From owner-freebsd-arch Thu Oct 12 19:22:36 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A635937B502; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e9D2MT426692; Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:22:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:22:29 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Terry Lambert Cc: Chuck Paterson , Mike Smith , arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <20001012192229.F272@fw.wintelcom.net> References: <20001012142257.S272@fw.wintelcom.net> <200010130219.TAA03232@usr05.primenet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: <200010130219.TAA03232@usr05.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:19:20AM +0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG * Terry Lambert [001012 19:19] wrote: > [ ... 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? The reason for atomic_init/destroy is to intialize mutexes if they are needed on the arch. Basically atomic64_t on 32bit arches would be a struct with a 64bit value and a mutex to protect it. -- -Alfred Perlstein - [bright@wintelcom.net|alfred@freebsd.org] "I have the heart of a child; I keep it in a jar on my desk." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message