Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:22:29 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: Chuck Paterson <cp@bsdi.com>, Mike Smith <msmith@FreeBSD.ORG>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <20001012192229.F272@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <200010130219.TAA03232@usr05.primenet.com>; from tlambert@primenet.com on Fri, Oct 13, 2000 at 02:19:20AM %2B0000 References: <20001012142257.S272@fw.wintelcom.net> <200010130219.TAA03232@usr05.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> [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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20001012192229.F272>