From: Matt Turner <[email protected]> Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 16:17:23 -0400
>>> What you want to check for is __sparc_v9__ >> >> That's not going to be CPP defined either, unfortunately. >> >> I really think, based upon this, that the hard-coded opcodes have to >> stay. It's the only way to cover all cases. > > If that's the case, this patch can be ignored. > > Does the hard-coded opcode account for the branch misprediction > errata? Does it need to? No, you're need to add that. Does it need to? Well, I certainly wouldn't want to have to track down a bug caused by the branch not being there. ;-) BTW, you'd need to use hard-coded opcodes for the branch too. > I assume it's a write barrier, and if so I'd prefer to change the name > of the macro from barrier() to write_mem_barrier() to match with the > others. I'm personally ambivalent about this. _______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
