On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 12:03 +0200, Patrick Marlier wrote: ---Sorry for the late response. > Dear Ismail, > > On 05/03/2011 11:18 PM, ismail wrote: > >> ++ First of all, MEMCPY and MEMSET functions do not include any > >> transaction identifier (id) and transactions inside the LeeTM fails > >> during transactional access to the memory. I think this case is also > >> for tinySTM-0.9.9 and tinySTM-1.0. > >> > >> ++ tinySTM-0.9.9 has mem access functions with transaction handlers as > >> the following > >> ++stm_word_t stm_load(stm_tx_t *tx, volatile stm_word_t *addr); > >> ++void stm_store(stm_tx_t *tx, volatile stm_word_t *addr, stm_word_t > >> value); > >> ++void stm_store2(stm_tx_t *tx, volatile stm_word_t *addr, stm_word_t > >> value, stm_word_t mask); > >> > >> > >> ++but tinySTM-1.0 does not . Your opinions on these different version > >> of mem-access functions would be great. > > TinySTM 1.0 uses implicit transaction descriptor by default (same as > 0.9.9) but you can compile it with EXPLICIT_TX_PARAMETER (Makefile) and > then the transaction descriptor is explicit. > But functions are the same from 0.9.9 to 1.0.0 so I don't really see the > problem. --- Yes . thanks for update , I remembered . Also I wrote the version wrong it is "0.9.0b1 release". There should be a parameter like EXPLICIT_TX_PARAMETER in trans-mem. Did you need a kind of parameter
--- while compiling the trans-mem branch ? For example to use trans-mem to transactify LeeTM (I am especially talking about the MEMSET and MEMCPY funcs. of trans-mem do not have transaction identifier while accessing to the mem.). --- I am currently using the explicit function calls when I need transaction identifier as the following. > >> ++My idea to convert from one version of mem-access function to > >> another is as the following: > >> > >> > >> ++ I think I have to make some explicit function calls as the > >> following: > >> ++ _ITM_transaction * td = _ITM_getTransaction(); > >> ++ int doWhat = > >> _ITM_beginTransaction(td,pr_instrumentedCode,&txn_start_loc); > >> ++ ..... > >> ++_ITM_transactionId cur_id = _ITM_getTransactionId(); > > I do not understand that... > --- I tried to get transaction handler which does not ---have explicit ---descriptor where another function needs transaction ---descriptor as ---a parameter. > >> ++ Of course , It would be great to share the study and results with > >> you when I organize my study and all other things. > > I guess we will meet together at the EuroTM meeting in Paris. > ---Yes that will be great for me to have a chance to talk and discuss topics with you > Patrick Marlier. ---Ismail KURU
