The type signature reveals all: ainc returns a long, and xinc is void.
You really can't test the value of the long * after you call xinc
because somebody else might have done an xinc after your xinc but
before you test the value.
I think, among others, floren and I needed ainc for devtrace years
On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 9:24 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Sat, 07 May 2011 20:25:25 EDT erik quanstrom
> wrote:
>> > > the difference, and my main point is that the loop in ainc means
>> > > that it is not a wait-free algorithm. this is not only sub optimal,
>> > > but also could lead to incorrec
On Sat, 07 May 2011 20:25:25 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > the difference, and my main point is that the loop in ainc means
> > > that it is not a wait-free algorithm. this is not only sub optimal,
> > > but also could lead to incorrect behavior.
> >
> > I think a more likely possibility for
> > the difference, and my main point is that the loop in ainc means
> > that it is not a wait-free algorithm. this is not only sub optimal,
> > but also could lead to incorrect behavior.
>
> I think a more likely possibility for the change is to have a
> *copy* of what was incremented. lock incl
On Sat, 07 May 2011 18:47:54 EDT erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Just guessing. May be the new code allows more concurrency? If the
> > value is not in the processor cache, will the old code block other
> > processors for much longer? The new code forces caching with the first
> > read so may be
> Just guessing. May be the new code allows more concurrency? If the
> value is not in the processor cache, will the old code block other
> processors for much longer? The new code forces caching with the first
> read so may be high likelyhood cmpxchg will finish faster. I haven't
> studied
> The main idea is to avoid the duplication of xlib dependent code in
> inferno, p9p, 9vx and drawterm and write a wsys device to use the
> window manager of the host system through a file server similar to
> rio(4). If the new x11 code will be a library or some sort of p9p's
> devdraw(1) and if th
On May 7, 2011, at 6:05 AM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
i'm confused by the recent change to the thread library.
the old code was simply to do a locked incl. the new code
does a locked exchange /within a loop/ until it's seen that
nobody else has updated the value at the same time, thus
insuring t
i'm confused by the recent change to the thread library.
the old code was simply to do a locked incl. the new code
does a locked exchange /within a loop/ until it's seen that
nobody else has updated the value at the same time, thus
insuring that the value has indeed been updated.
since the expens
On May 6, 2011, at 11:01 PM, Lucio De Re wrote:
> has anybody
> conclusively established why something MS could not successfully market
> has found such a ready audience when supplied by Apple? Is it the UI
> as one might conclude from an earlier post?
The stylus, maybe? http://www.tuaw.com/fi
10 matches
Mail list logo
