On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 08:59:31PM +, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:02 PM, git...@crest.iu.edu wrote:
>
> > +static inline int32_t opal_atomic_swap_32( volatile int32_t *addr,
> > + int32_t newval)
> > +{
> > +int32_t oldval;
>
Right, that's why I'm recommending adding a comment so we don't have someone
flag this a third time :)
-Dave
On Mar 25, 2015, at 4:43 PM, George Bosilca wrote:
> I had the same impression but them I went and read the Intel documentation
> and xchg is one of these
I had the same impression but them I went and read the Intel documentation
and xchg is one of these exceptions where the lock is implicit.
George.
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Dave Goodell (dgoodell) wrote:
> On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:02 PM, git...@crest.iu.edu wrote:
>
On Mar 25, 2015, at 3:02 PM, git...@crest.iu.edu wrote:
> +static inline int32_t opal_atomic_swap_32( volatile int32_t *addr,
> +int32_t newval)
> +{
> +int32_t oldval;
> +
> +__asm__ __volatile__("xchg %1, %0" :
This code *looks* buggy because it
Le 25/03/2015 21:00, Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) a écrit :
> This has come up in multiple scenarios recently: when compiling OMPI (which
> contains hwloc 1.9.1), you get a linker error complaining about a duplicate
> symbol "Lhwloc1".
>
> Peter (CC'ed) was looking into this, but it came up again
Can you please retest both make check and vader with the following patch
applied? It fixes the constraint modifiers for opal_atomic_add_32 and
opal_atomic_sub_32 and adds a native opal_atomic_swap_32.
-Nathan
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:20:13PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> We currently have