On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 22:45 +0100, Emilio Coppa wrote:
Thank both of you for your answers.
Each CPU core may switch logical threads only at a superblock
boundary,
but mutual exclusion between threads on different CPU cores is
not guaranteed.
For
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Philippe Waroquiers
philippe.waroqui...@skynet.be wrote:
It is even not ok to use an atomic instruction : first tests have
shown that having one atomic instruction on this path makes a
multi-threaded Valgrind slower than a serialised Valgrind.
You mean a
It is hard to answer this question since it is not really clear what
you mean by atomic here. Can you clarify?
J
On Thursday, December 27, 2012, Emilio Coppa wrote:
Hi all,
I would like to know if Valgrind assures atomic execution of a dirty
helper. In more detail I am interested in the
Hi,
It is hard to answer this question since it is not really clear what
you mean by atomic here. Can you clarify?
I mean atomic in the sense of no thread switching/interleaving.
Emilio.
--
Master HTML5, CSS3,
I mean atomic in the sense of no thread switching/interleaving.
In that case, yes it is atomic. That is, V will not switch threads
within a superblock. It can only switch threads at superblock boundaries.
J
--
On 12/28/2012 07:57 AM, Julian Seward wrote:
I mean atomic in the sense of no thread switching/interleaving.
In that case, yes it is atomic. That is, V will not switch threads
within a superblock. It can only switch threads at superblock boundaries.To
Today this is true. However, there
Hi all,
I would like to know if Valgrind assures atomic execution of a dirty
helper. In more detail I am interested in the situation:
---
access to a memory cell
call to a dirty helper X() [inserted by unsafeIRDirty_0_N]
execution of X()
---
Is this executed atomically by Valgrind?
I know that
