From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jan 16 19: 3:33 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mailman.zeta.org.au (mailman.zeta.org.au [203.26.10.16])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 96B3D37B401; Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:03:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from bde.zeta.org.au (bde.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.102])
	by mailman.zeta.org.au (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA30207;
	Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:06 +1100
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:03:14 +1100 (EST)
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
X-Sender: bde@besplex.bde.org
To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Cc: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>,
	Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
	Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>
Subject: Re: Atomic breakage?
In-Reply-To: <3A64AA23.30035A1C@elischer.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101171400210.3074-100000@besplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Julian Elischer wrote:

> Bruce Evans wrote:
> > I bother with 64-bit longs whether I need to or not :-).  They get used on
> > i386's mainly in old code and interfaces that don't use typedefs.
> > Hopefully 64-bit scalars will never need to be accessed atomically.
> 
> Too late.
> 
> Many statistics in interfaces (i.e. bytes transmitted) are already 64 bit
> words.

These don't use atomic operations (hint: no 64-bit atomic operations are
implemented on i386's).  If they need to be atomic, then they must use
locks.

Bruce



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