* Paolo Bonzini ([email protected]) wrote: > On 06/16/2010 02:12 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 01:55:13AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 06/16/2010 01:14 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: >>>> Create urcu/arch_unknown.h and urcu/uatomic_arch_unknown.h, which >>>> contain only #error statements and explanatory comments. This forces >>>> build failures on unrecognized architectures in preference to trying >>>> to guess at what operations might be safe on such architectures. >>>> >>>> One other semi-feasible alternative is to use hashed arrays of locks >>>> that are acquired with signals disabled. However, this seems a bit >>>> too ornate, especially for architectures for which the gcc __sync_ >>>> primitives work correctly. >>> >>> ia64 is one. >> >> Does ia64 work with the current code? (My guess is "no" -- I believe >> that you would get build errors. But I have been surprised before!) > > I don't know. :) > >> If my guess is correct, my thought would be to create urcu/arch_gcc.h >> and urcu/uatomic_arch_gcc.h files with the appropriate definitions >> based on __sync_ primitives. If you can test on IA64, I would also >> be happy to add support for it based on these new files. > > Sure, thanks!
So given the #error on unknown removes ia64 support, I'll wait for a patch resend before I merge this patch along with the "gcc-based" ia64 support. Is that OK ? So Paul, could you resend this patch along with the ia64 support based on gcc ? Thanks, Mathieu > > Paolo -- Mathieu Desnoyers Operating System Efficiency R&D Consultant EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ ltt-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.casi.polymtl.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ltt-dev
