10 Dec
2002
10 Dec
'02
10:26 a.m.
Steve Harris wrote:
no, atomic is 32 bits on x86. its only 24 bits on sparc, where
the need to provide a spinlock to cover cache write-back effects
forces it to 24 bits. you can do atomic exchange and compare-and-swap
on pointers for x86.
--p
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 02:03:42 +0100, Tim Goetze
wrote:
No, it really isn't that slow.
SyncModular does a similar trick.
it'd still be interesting to know how the sync problems this
method poses are solved: you cannot rely on executable code
modifications to be atomic. an indirect jump instruction is
not guaranteed to work ok: a pointer on x86 is 32 bits, and
atomic is 24 bits Not if it
generates machine code. That way, it could (theoretically)
in realtime? we'll need everybodies' spare cpu cycles!