[Manual] memory access atomicity
NIIBE Yutaka
gniibe@m17n.org
Fri Sep 2 06:59:00 GMT 2005
Hi,
I found a bug in the description of sig_atomic_t. It said:
In practice, you can assume that @code{int} and other integer
types no longer than @code{int} are atomic.
This is untrue, for example, 16-bit access or 8-bit access on Alpha is
not atomic.
Here is a patch to point out this issue.
Index: signal.texi
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/glibc/libc/manual/signal.texi,v
retrieving revision 1.70
diff -u -3 -p -r1.70 signal.texi
--- signal.texi 12 Jul 2004 21:44:33 -0000 1.70
+++ signal.texi 2 Sep 2005 06:37:07 -0000
@@ -2029,8 +2029,8 @@ This is an integer data type. Objects o
atomically.
@end deftp
-In practice, you can assume that @code{int} and other integer types no
-longer than @code{int} are atomic. You can also assume that pointer
+In practice, you can assume that @code{int} is atomic.
+You can also assume that pointer
types are atomic; that is very convenient. Both of these assumptions
are true on all of the machines that the GNU C library supports and on
all POSIX systems we know of.
More information about the Libc-hacker
mailing list