Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:44:34 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <200010130944.CAA23368@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200010130934.e9D9YdG38096@netplex.com.au> from "Peter Wemm" at Oct 13, 2000 02:34:39 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Why call it "atomic_t" instead of "long", then? > > Because certain arch'es that have a greater than zero probability of having > a FreeBSD port cannot do atomic operations on entities larger than 24 bits. > Therefore, atomic_add_long() etc cannot exist on that system, but atomic_t > can. OK, OK; Alfred wanted only 16 bits. So I recant, and change the question to: "Why call it "atomic_t" instead of "uint16_t", then? 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200010130944.CAA23368>