Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:10:10 -0800 From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za> Subject: Re: Atomic breakage? Message-ID: <20010116191009.E7240@fw.wintelcom.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101171400210.3074-100000@besplex.bde.org>; from bde@zeta.org.au on Wed, Jan 17, 2001 at 02:03:14PM %2B1100 References: <3A64AA23.30035A1C@elischer.org> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0101171400210.3074-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> [010116 19:03] wrote: > 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. Just wondering, can't you use 'LOCK addl' and then use 'LOCK addc'? add longword, add longword with carry? I know it would be pretty ugly, but it should work, no? -- -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-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010116191009.E7240>