On Jan 16, 2013, at 6:41 AM, Leif Lindholm <leif.lindh...@arm.com> wrote:
> That isn't, technically speaking, correct for the Raspberry Pi - but it is a > workaround if you know you will never actually use the asm implementations of > the atomics, but only the inline C ones.. > > This sort of hides the problem that the dedicated barrier instructions were > not available in ARMv6 (it used "system control coprocessor operations" > instead. > > If you ever executed the asm implementation, you would trigger an undefined > instruction exception on the Pi. Hah; sweet. Ok. So what's the right answer? Would it be acceptable to use a no-op for this operation on such architectures? -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com For corporate legal information go to: http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/
