This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: [PATCH] correction for PPC __compare_and_swap


Our Java guys tried your patch and say it looks good to them, so

. I would like to go with your patch rather than mine.  I like yours
. I have looked into getting rid of the reservation code on unlock.  I
don't see any practical way to do that.  I would like to drop that issue.
. I think this addresses some of what Kaz was saying, but certainly not
all.  (I'm sorry I didn't respond.  Things got interesting here.)  I have
been reviewing the additional postings forwarded by Alexander.  I would
like to have a separate discussion on that but I'm not clear that this is
the correct forum.  Should that be taken offline?


Geoff Keating <> on 05/10/2001 04:30:53 AM

Please respond to Geoff Keating <>

To:   David Mehaffy/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:, Brian Mccorkle/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Subject:  Re: [PATCH] correction for PPC __compare_and_swap

> From:
> X-Lotus-FromDomain: IBMUS
> cc:,
> Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 20:08:21 -0500
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Geoff,
> I'll have Brian tryout your patch with our Java people and see if it
> their problem.  Meanwhile I will look at seeing if I can come up with a
> patch that doesn't use __compare_and_swap for the lock release.  I agree
> that we would like to not change machine independent code but I think we
> will have to change a line or two and we can #ifdef powerpc the code
> I hope I can find away around that.

The #ifdef should be something like


that is, a generic #define rather than just 'is this powerpc'.  I'm
sure other machines have this same property.

- Geoffrey Keating <>

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]