I've added this to today's ARCH call agenda.
On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 5:32 AM, Maxim Uvarov <maxim.uva...@linaro.org> wrote: > 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.
