> On 17 Dec 2014, at 17:27, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On 17 December 2014 at 16:17, Mark Burton <mark.bur...@greensocs.com> wrote:
>> Sorry - I should have replied to this Peter
>> I agree with you - I dont know how much overlap we’ll find with different
>> architectures.
>> But if we stick to the more generic ‘lock/unlock’, I dont see how this is
>> going to help us output thread safe code without going thought a mutex - at
>> which point we are back to square 1.
>
> I think a mutex is fine, personally -- I just don't want
> to see fifteen hand-hacked mutexes in the target-* code.
>
Which would seem to favour the helper function approach?
Or am I missing something?
If we can’t arrange for the target code to optimise the mutex away and use host
native instructions, then I dont really see the benefit of complicating the IR
and the target code?
Cheers
Mark.
> -- PMM
+44 (0)20 7100 3485 x 210
+33 (0)5 33 52 01 77x 210
+33 (0)603762104
mark.burton
