On 12.04.2017 13:15, Joe Savage wrote: >>>> The problem is that when we discussed this patch on ODP call people very >>>> worry about having 128bit instructions in ODP examples. At least Petri >>>> and Barry asked if it would be possible to rewrite that with 64 bit >>>> instructions? Some compilers might not support 128 bits and we need to >>>> test it more. >>> >>> On 32-bit platforms, it already does use 64-bit atomics. In general, though, >>> the example hinges around having atomics that are twice the pointer size. >>> We've actually discussed this on the list already in the thread "32-bit >>> support in examples". Even if lock-free implementations can't be used, >>> compilers can (and frequently do?) provide a lock-based compare exchange >>> operation. >> >> Any progress on this? > > This is getting mildly ridiculous now — it's nearing three months since I > initially submitted this simple example patch, and there's still no end in > sight! Maxim: any status updates? >
Dmitry wanted to write some big review for that patch. But I do not see anything here. People commented on 128 bit instructions in examples and nobody set their review-by. I will rise question about your patch one more time on arch call. I can not include things where we did not get common agreement. I do not see anything bad with this patch but we need account all existence odp platforms. Maxim.
