[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Difference between atomic operations and memory barriers
On 10/27/2009 01:51 PM, wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:30:45 +0530, "Leonidas ." said:
>> So we can safely assume that pointer assignment will be done in an
>> atomic manner?
> Has anybody ever actually made a *production* CPU that had non-atomic
> pointer assignments? And how long before the crazed programmers lynched
> and burned the offending CPU designer at the stake? ;)
> Non-atomic pointer assignments are the CPU design equivalent of Vogon poetry.
> Just Say No. With a shotgun if needed.

What don't you know? the CPU that started it all was like that, the x86 16-bit
"large" and "huge" model had a double register seg:offset set, also in-memory
was double-ints(2*16) even the i386 was running 16 bit modes for a long time.

Kernel still have 16-bit dosemu mode supported until today, no?

About the shotguns lynching and burning I'm not sure, but Intel survived
just fine.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-28 11:03    [W:0.096 / U:23.348 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site