> From: Yvan Roux [yvan.r...@linaro.org] > Sent: 25 November 2012 19:51 > To: Ramana Radhakrishnan > Cc: linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: Atomic builtins questions
> > That is correct. The addresses need to be aligned as per the restrictions in > > the architecture. Yes we could have an issue but software writers need to > > deal with it because IIUC you either have a huge performance penalty (x86 / > > lock prefix) or correctness issues (ARM, Powerpc) . > Ok thanks, I buy the performance argument and I found on the wiki page below > that these issues will be treated in the GCC/libatomic in 4.9 release. It's a correctness issue on ARM. It won't work till the architecture changes. If it isn't correct, there's no point being fast :) . Taking off list as I wasn't a 100% sure what you meant there. If you really need something like that you'll need a library call and the library call deals with it by doing an atomic access of the correspondingly rounded up size from an appropriately rounded down address. regards, Ramana _______________________________________________ linaro-toolchain mailing list linaro-toolchain@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-toolchain
