On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 09:40:09 -0700, Charles Mills (charl...@mcn.org) wrote about "CSST question" (in <0b3a01d32a53$776116a0$662343e0$@mcn.org>):
[snip] > Is that saying that there is a chance that another CPU might observe a > condition in which the store of the first operand had occurred, but the > store of the second operand had not? My understanding from earlier > paragraphs was that CSST happened "all at once" from the point of view of > other CPUs. Was I mistaken? My reading of PoOps is that CSST is guaranteed to be atomic, just like the other instructions in the compare-and-swap family. So your first understanding is correct. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* david.w.n...@googlemail.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
