On 11/01/2011 04:56 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > well, the reason for it was so that __atomic_store can be used as a > replacement for sync_lock_release on such targets...
And what was your replacement for sync_test_and_set? If you don't have that pair, you don't have a replacement. > Im just concerned that we now lose the ability to implement the > boolean class test_and_set and clear now on such a target... It's not like the __sync functions are going away. Thankfully there aren't many such targets. ... indeed, there's only one left: Sparc v8. The others that I was thinking of (PA and SH) have dropped that support and now only use linux-atomic.asm kernel implementations. Given that I believe that essentially all Sparcs still running are actually v9 and have native CAS, I think we can ignore this problem entirely. r~
