On 12.04.2017 14:05, Joe Savage wrote: > On 12/04/17 11:32, Maxim Uvarov wrote: >> On 12.04.2017 13:15, Joe Savage wrote: >>>>>> The problem is that when we discussed this patch on ODP call people very >>>>>> worry about having 128bit instructions in ODP examples. At least Petri >>>>>> and Barry asked if it would be possible to rewrite that with 64 bit >>>>>> instructions? Some compilers might not support 128 bits and we need to >>>>>> test it more. >>>>> >>>>> On 32-bit platforms, it already does use 64-bit atomics. In general, >>>>> though, >>>>> the example hinges around having atomics that are twice the pointer size. >>>>> We've actually discussed this on the list already in the thread "32-bit >>>>> support in examples". Even if lock-free implementations can't be used, >>>>> compilers can (and frequently do?) provide a lock-based compare exchange >>>>> operation. >>>> >>>> Any progress on this? >>> >>> This is getting mildly ridiculous now — it's nearing three months since I >>> initially submitted this simple example patch, and there's still no end in >>> sight! Maxim: any status updates? >>> >> >> Dmitry wanted to write some big review for that patch. But I do not see >> anything here. People commented on 128 bit instructions in examples and >> nobody set their review-by. I will rise question about your patch one >> more time on arch call. I can not include things where we did not get >> common agreement. I do not see anything bad with this patch but we need >> account all existence odp platforms.
Forgot to mention. Your implementation seems build fine for MIPS64, so there should be no more issues from my side. -- With best wishes Dmitry
