From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NilMK-0005LJ-TF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:10:44 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32880 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NilMJ-0005KL-8l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:10:43 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NilMH-0002SL-5H for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:10:43 -0500 Received: from duck.dooz.org ([194.146.227.125]:56642) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NilMG-0002SF-ST for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:10:41 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:10:37 +0100 From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Lo=EFc?= Minier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Detect and use GCC atomic builtins for locking Message-ID: <20100220091037.GC9788@bee.dooz.org> References: <1266613360-23069-1-git-send-email-lool@dooz.org> <20100220081625.GA9788@bee.dooz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: malc Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, Feb 20, 2010, malc wrote: > For instance this: > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-06/msg00112.html >=20 > The builtins are too coarse grained and will do more stuff than strictl= y > necessary. Is this the case of the builtins I'm proposing to use? We could ask for new ones without the drawbacks if any. Do you have another option to implement locking on thumb-2? --=20 Lo=EFc Minier