On 11/01/2011 11:15 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/01/2011 04:56 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:well, the reason for it was so that __atomic_store can be used as a replacement for sync_lock_release on such targets...And what was your replacement for sync_test_and_set?If you don't have that pair, you don't have a replacement.
store (m, 0) is release and t = exchange (m, 1) is test_and_set.
