Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 19:39:23 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: cp@bsdi.com (Chuck Paterson) Cc: bright@wintelcom.net (Alfred Perlstein), msmith@FreeBSD.ORG (Mike Smith), arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: we need atomic_t Message-ID: <200010121939.MAA03665@usr09.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <200010121523.JAA16007@berserker.bsdi.com> from "Chuck Paterson" at Oct 12, 2000 09:23:13 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> It seems to me that the problem with atomic_t is that there > is no place in MI code where it is safe to use this because it > doesn't have a guaranteed size. Respectfully, relying on something being so large that it "will never overflow" is asking for trouble. Instead, the wrap boundary should be protected to allow wrapping, and we shouldn't give a damn about the size of atomic_t. The idea that it needs to be a counter in the first place is, well, pretty silly. 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?200010121939.MAA03665>