On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 02:21:34PM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote:
then I realized that this solution would break if people actually
wrote code like
lock(a)
lock(b)
release(a)
release(b)
...which is very common.
It is? I would have thought (and hoped)
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 08:31:39PM +, Eduardo Horvath wrote:
No it doesen't because all those macros assume the value is being
transferred from one register to another rather than regiser to memory.
The assignment:
foo.size = htole64(size);
Cannot be replaced with:
Just a note to avoid having incorrect information in the archives
without a correction. I wrote:
[%] It occurs to me, the VAX's BBSSI and BBCCI _are_ CAS, just
restricted to a one-bit-wide operand (and with the data-to-swap-in
specified by choice of instruction rather than an operand).
This
On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 01:45:40AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
Wow. I guess you can add me to the list of people leaving.
There is no perfect world and we don't have enough resources.
Any help to keep support for ancient machines are appreciate, but
complaints like we should support
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs. indirect #include from
headers?
Every header
On Nov,Monday 15 2010, at 7:16 AM, Bernd Ernesti wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:24:21AM +0900, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 05:52:51AM +, David Holland wrote:
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 03:32:44AM +, Masao Uebayashi wrote:
XXX What is the conclusion about direct vs.
