On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:15:09PM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > On Sun, 23 May 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > In message <[email protected]>, Bruce Evans writes: > >> On Thu, 20 May 2010, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > >> <machine/atomic.h> should be kernel-only. > > > > No, it absolutely should not, if anything, it should be pushed as > > international standards (with <sys/endian.h>, and <sys/queue.h>). > > > > Atomic operations and write barriers are necessary when multiple > > threads or processes cooperate using shared memory. and if anything > > the bug is that POSIX has not updated pthreads to have these and > > other necessary primitives. (pthread_mutex_assert_held() for instance). > > Pehraps, but <machine/atomic.h> was only designed, implemented and > documented for use in the kernel. And of course any standardized version > won't look like the FreeBSD kernel one. The kernel one is too bloated > for me, but a general-purpose one should be even more bloated so as > to support all types and more than atomic ops.
The FreeBSD port of the "Zero" Java VM uses <machine/atomic.h>. Well, except on sparc64 where <machine/atomic.h> pulls in too much namespace pollution and it instead includes chunks of the header verbatim instead :(. -- Greg Lewis Email : [email protected] Eyes Beyond Web : http://www.eyesbeyond.com Information Technology FreeBSD : [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
