Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.arch |
| Subject | Re: Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail |
| Date | 2012-03-08 11:09 -0800 |
| Organization | http://groups.google.com |
| Message-ID | <6577256.909.1331233761068.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yner4> (permalink) |
| References | <4F56E2CB.6090708@SPAM.comp-arch.net> <15409625.819.1331143153579.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynt13> <4F5856D9.500@SPAM.comp-arch.net> |
On Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:51:05 AM UTC-6, Andy (Super) Glew wrote: > On 3/7/2012 9:59 AM, MitchAlsup wrote: > > Pseudo atomicity is the only way to extend the instruction set so that one can encode atomic activities that require more than 2 unique memory references and some bookeeping instructions between the starting of the atomic event and the completion thereof. > I believe that I have just discovered a way to prove your statement wrong. Do I need to add the phrase: "without cluttering up the instruction set" to the previous? Mitch
Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-06 20:23 -0800
Re: Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-03-07 09:59 -0800
Re: Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-07 22:51 -0800
Re: Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail MitchAlsup <MitchAlsup@aol.com> - 2012-03-08 11:09 -0800
Re: Pseudo-atomic - atomic operations that can fail "Andy (Super) Glew" <andy@SPAM.comp-arch.net> - 2012-03-08 17:14 -0800
csiph-web