Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:00:05 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <a.reilly@lake.com.au> To: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> Cc: Andrew Reilly <a.reilly@lake.com.au>, Mike Haertel <mike@ducky.net>, Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com>, Luoqi Chen <luoqi@watermarkgroup.com>, dfr@nlsystems.com, jeremyp@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: "objtrm" problem probably found (was Re: Stuck in "objtrm") Message-ID: <19990713160005.B94421@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <199907130538.WAA04527@dingo.cdrom.com>; from Mike Smith on Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 10:38:03PM -0700 References: <19990713153716.A94421@gurney.reilly.home> <199907130538.WAA04527@dingo.cdrom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 10:38:03PM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> I said:
> > than indirect function calls on some architectures: inline
> > branched code. So you still have a global variable selecting
> > locked/non-locked, but it's a boolean, rather than a pointer.
> > Your atomic macros are then { if (atomic_lock) asm("lock;foo");
> > else asm ("foo"); }
>
> This requires you to have all the methods present at compile time,
> which defeats the entire purpose of dynamic method loading.
Pardon? I didn't see a discussion of dynamic loading anywhere
here. We were referring to tiny inlined assembly language routines.
The existing implementation is #defines in a C header file.
(No, SmallEiffel doesn't do dynamic loading, and that's a perfectly
fair and reasonable choice for a large number of applications.)
--
Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990713160005.B94421>