Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: <fons@...>
To: Linux Audio Developers <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Monday, December 14, 2009 - 9:58 pm

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 02:45:38PM -0500, Stephen Sinclair wrote:

> I didn't read the others, but I looked at this one and I think it's

True. OTOH having devoted cq. wasted part of my life
programming SPARC machines I can confirm Paul Davis'
comment on those: sig_atomic_t on these machines was
24 bits. But I *never* understood how on earth they
managed to create this anomaly on what was after all
a full 32-bit architecture.

A simple pattern I use to avoid the incr/decr problem
is to use two variables, each one of them being modified
(incremented) by only one thread. Instead of testing for
zero test for equality.

Ciao,

--
FA
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Atomic Operations, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Dec 12, 5:47 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Stephen Sinclair, (Mon Dec 14, 7:45 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, , (Mon Dec 14, 9:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Paul Davis, (Mon Dec 14, 7:50 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Clemens Ladisch, (Tue Dec 15, 9:14 am)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Nick Copeland, (Mon Dec 14, 8:04 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Paul Davis, (Mon Dec 14, 8:22 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, David Olofson, (Mon Dec 14, 10:00 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, , (Sat Dec 12, 8:59 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Arnold Krille, (Sat Dec 12, 7:32 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Gabriel M. Beddingfield, (Sat Dec 12, 7:40 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Tim Blechmann, (Sat Dec 12, 6:58 pm)
Re: [LAD] Atomic Operations, Victor Lazzarini, (Sat Dec 12, 6:43 pm)