From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NitZt-0005m3-FC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:57:17 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40554 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NitZs-0005lB-Qt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:57:16 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NitZq-0004mQ-8N for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:57:16 -0500 Received: from fe01x03-cgp.akado.ru ([77.232.31.164]:63250 helo=akado.ru) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NitZp-0004kW-9U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:57:13 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 20:57:05 +0300 (MSK) From: malc Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Detect and use GCC atomic builtins for locking In-Reply-To: <20100220091037.GC9788@bee.dooz.org> Message-ID: References: <1266613360-23069-1-git-send-email-lool@dooz.org> <20100220081625.GA9788@bee.dooz.org> <20100220091037.GC9788@bee.dooz.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Lo=EFc_Minier?= Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Sat, 20 Feb 2010, Lo?c Minier wrote: > On Sat, Feb 20, 2010, malc wrote: > > For instance this: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-alpha/2005-06/msg00112.html > > > > The builtins are too coarse grained and will do more stuff than strictly > > 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? No, i'm against using locking GCC builtins for all the other targets (well PPC), if they provide satisfactory results for thumb-2 please do submit an updated patch which uses them only for this host. -- mailto:av1474@comtv.ru