> From: Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> > Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2011 18:45:11 +0100
> On 11/11/2011 12:43 AM, Benjamin Kosnik wrote: > I think there is also an argument for single threaded-ness vs multi > threaded. If there is no atomic support and its single threaded, we > don't really need the lock... and I'm not sure how you can detect the > change in behaviour if test_and_set and clear just store 1 and 0 rather > than create alock, then do the store of 1 or 0. > > If the target is multithreaded, well, we'll have to go to a lock I > guess... Are there any multithreaded targets without atomic support? > ie, is this one? No, cris-elf is not multithreaded target. (FWIW, cris-*-linux* and crisv32-*-linux* are, but the lack of update to the atomicity support for them is a port bug.) brgds, H-P
