From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Oct 13 2:44:44 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 2BF1A37B502 for ; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:44:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from daemon@localhost) by smtp04.primenet.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id CAA18424; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:41:49 -0700 (MST) Received: from usr09.primenet.com(206.165.6.209) via SMTP by smtp04.primenet.com, id smtpdAAAAHai6J; Fri Oct 13 02:41:47 2000 Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr09.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id CAA23368; Fri, 13 Oct 2000 02:44:34 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <200010130944.CAA23368@usr09.primenet.com> Subject: Re: we need atomic_t To: peter@netplex.com.au (Peter Wemm) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 09:44:34 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), arch@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <200010130934.e9D9YdG38096@netplex.com.au> from "Peter Wemm" at Oct 13, 2000 02:34:39 AM 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 > > 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