From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NunHU-0006mS-SW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:39:28 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=51792 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NunHS-0006m0-SV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:39:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NunHO-0006V9-VN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:39:26 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:49782) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NunHO-0006V5-Ro for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:39:22 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([38.113.113.100]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NunHO-0002CO-9g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 25 Mar 2010 09:39:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:39:20 -0700 From: Nathan Froyd Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 09/10] target-alpha: Implement load-locked/store-conditional properly. Message-ID: <20100325133920.GS16726@codesourcery.com> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aurelien@aurel32.net On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 05:11:43PM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote: > Use __sync_bool_compare_and_swap to yield correctly atomic results. > As yet, this assumes running on an strict-memory-ordering host (i.e. x86), > since we're still "implementing" the memory-barrier instructions as nops. Did the approach taken by other targets (arm/mips/ppc) not work on Alpha? -Nathan