[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7943.1186807115@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2007 00:38:35 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
horms@...ge.net.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
csnook@...hat.com, rpjday@...dspring.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ak@...e.de, cfriesen@...tel.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jesper.juhl@...il.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, zlynx@....org, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, wensong@...ux-vs.org, wjiang@...ilience.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/24] make atomic_read() behave consistently on alpha
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 02:38:40 +0200, Segher Boessenkool said:
> >> That means GCC cannot compile Linux; it already optimises
> >> some accesses to scalars to smaller accesses when it knows
> >> it is allowed to. Not often though, since it hardly ever
> >> helps in the cost model it employs.
> >
> > Please give an example code snippet + gcc version + arch
> > to back this up.
>
> unsigned char f(unsigned long *p)
> {
> return *p & 1;
> }
Not really valid, because it's still able to do one atomic access to
compute the result.
Now, if you had found an example where it converts a 32-bit atomic access into
2 separate 16-bit accesses that weren't atomic as a whole....
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists