Messages in this thread | | | From | (Davide Libenzi) | Subject | Re: (*(unsigned long *)&jiffies)++; | Date | Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:31:34 +0100 |
| |
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > AFAIK the generated code is the same on intel. > > Having a single instruction to increment a memory location ( in any > > architecture ? ) why the compiler should split the operation ?
> This is not meant mean anything other than what was stated. I will > wear my flak jacket when others try to change my statements into a > C-war. 'C' is a good tool. In particular, it has grown to where it > is the tool of choice for many writing portable code. However, specific > memory locations, and specific read/write orderings are not portable. > For this, you use another tool.
I don't want to start any C-war. I use C from 1982 and it's my favourite programming language. As You can see I've used a question mark to hilight the question nature of my statement. What I meant was :
Why split a sigle, atomic, register clobber free and less expensive instruction like "incl xx" with a - load , incr , store sequence.
The only reason I can see is the absence of the "incl" instruction on some processor.
Cheers, Davide.
-- "Debian, the freedom in freedom."
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |