[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel

To: Joe deBlaquiere <>
Subject: Re: MIPS_ATOMIC_SET again (Re: newest kernel
From: Florian Lohoff <>
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:15:50 +0200
Cc: Jun Sun <>, "Maciej W. Rozycki" <>,, Pete Popov <>, George Gensure <>,, "Kevin D. Kissell" <>
In-reply-to: <>; from on Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:04:41PM -0500
Organization: rfc822 - pure communication
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.15i
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 03:04:41PM -0500, Joe deBlaquiere wrote:
> The thing I don't understand is how glibc is going to cleanly decide at 
> runtime which code to use. It's relatively easy to do something like 
> that in the kernel, but I can't come up with an elegant solution to make 
> such a choice at runtime in glibc.

Export the existance of ll/sc via /proc/cpuinfo or whatever.

> Assuming that we're moving forward (as Kevin points out) the percentage 
> of systems without ll/sc is going down. While these systems don't have 
> much CPU power to spare, we should make the baseline implementation have 
> ll/sc emulation. If somebody wants to make a MIPS I optimized glibc, 
> then that's fine, but allowing the 'standard' MIPSII glibc to work on 
> all systems simplifies life ( mine at least ;) ).

I dont think this is true necessarly - There are still people building
embedded x86 systems based on 386 cores. Look at the vr41xx systems - They
do also lack the ll/sc afaik. This is nowadays the most commonly
used embedded/pda cpu.

Florian Lohoff                     +49-5201-669912
     Why is it called "common sense" when nobody seems to have any?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>