Please could somebody on the "eat your CAS whether you like it or not" side of the fence explain why the following idea would not work:
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010, der Mouse wrote: > Consider this hypothetical: > > x86 does #define ATOMIC_OPS_USE_CAS and defines a CAS(); MI code > notices this and defines all the higher-level primitives (if that's not > too much of an oxymoron) in terms of CAS(). > > ppc, arm, all the arches sufficiently "modern" to have CAS, likewise. > > Arches without a sufficiently general CAS[%] do not define > ATOMIC_OPS_USE_CAS and provides their own implementations of mutexes, > spinlocks, whatever. --apb (Alan Barrett)
