Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #87700

Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references

From "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references
Date 2022-12-02 13:22 -0800
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <tmdqa9$358pk$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (10 earlier) <a3cd87b9-578b-4ec9-8111-2f70eb5e985cn@googlegroups.com> <e4oiL.36061$f9D6.33011@fx09.iad> <tmdn7j$352d1$1@dont-email.me> <iDtiL.87934$Q0m1.45700@fx18.iad> <jQtiL.1308$_Y84.549@fx46.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/2/2022 1:09 PM, Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2022-12-02, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 12/2/2022 6:36 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:
>>>>> On Thursday, December 1, 2022 at 9:09:39 PM UTC+2, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Paavo Helde <ees...@osa.pri.ee> writes:
>>>>>>> 01.12.2022 18:02 Scott Lurndal kirjutas:
>>>>>>>> Paavo Helde <ees...@osa.pri.ee> writes:
>>>>>>>>> 01.12.2022 15:06 Stuart Redmann kirjutas:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In legacy Intel/AMD systems, where the LOCK prefix is being used, the
>>>>>> systemwide lock is the only possibility [*].
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh?
>>>>> There is absolute no relationship between what prefix is used (instruction
>>>>> encoding issue) and implementation.
>>>>
>>>> The only way to specify an atomic access in those chips was
>>>> to use the LOCK prefix (e.g. LOCK ADD generates an atomic
>>>> add, et alia).
>>>>
>>>
>>> Iirc, XCHG has an implicit LOCK prefix?
>>
>> Not sure about XCHG, but CMPXCHG requires the prefix
>> when used in a multiprocessor system; on a uniprocessor
>> it will be atomic because interrupts are always taken
>> between instructions (unlike, the VAX, for instance,
>> where certain instructions (MOVC3/5) can be interrupted
>> and restarted).    I suspect that XCHG has similar
>> characteristics.
>>
>>
>    "lock" prefix causes the processor's bus-lock signal to be asserted during
> execution of the accompanying instruction. In a multiprocessor environment,
> the bus-lock signal insures that the processor has exclusive use of any shared
> memory while the signal is asserted. The "lock" prefix can be prepended only
> to the following instructions and only to those forms of the instructions
> where the destination operand is a memory operand: "add", "adc", "and", "btc",
> "btr", "bts", "cmpxchg", "cmpxchg8b", "dec", "inc", "neg", "not", "or", "sbb",
> "sub", "xor", "xadd" and "xchg". If the "lock" prefix is used with one of
> these instructions and the source operand is a memory operand, an undefined
> opcode exception may be generated. An undefined opcode exception will also be
> generated if the "lock" prefix is used with any instruction not in the above
> list. 


> The "xchg" instruction always asserts the bus-lock signal regardless of
> the presence or absence of the "lock" prefix.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

BINGO! I had a strong feeling I was right.

https://youtu.be/TnZrWWUFl8I

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-22 09:52 +0000
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-11-22 11:23 +0100
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-11-22 13:27 +0200
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-23 06:52 +0000
      Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Alf P. Steinbach" <alf.p.steinbach@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 13:51 +0100
        Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-11-23 13:46 +0000
          Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-11-30 13:59 +0200
            Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-01 06:45 +0000
              Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 09:19 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Stuart Redmann <DerTopper@web.de> - 2022-12-01 14:06 +0100
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 16:45 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-01 16:02 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 20:21 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-01 19:09 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-02 05:53 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 14:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 12:29 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 20:55 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 12:58 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-02 21:18 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 14:16 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2022-12-02 21:09 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 13:22 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Branimir Maksimovic <branimir.maksimovic@icloud.com> - 2022-12-02 21:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-02 14:13 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-02 18:33 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-01 11:59 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-01 23:53 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-02 04:11 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-01 12:21 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-06 11:36 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 12:26 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-06 20:39 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-06 23:53 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 13:59 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-06 22:04 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-12-06 21:38 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-12-07 15:22 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-07 18:37 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-06 14:01 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-07 09:05 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:48 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-07 12:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-12-08 07:52 +0000
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-08 05:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2022-12-08 13:30 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2022-12-09 12:50 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-12-11 12:18 +0100
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-12-08 13:38 +0200
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-12-08 16:45 -0800
                Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-12-09 04:35 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 15:36 +0100
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Chris Vine <chris@cvine--nospam--.freeserve.co.uk> - 2022-11-22 15:21 +0000
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-11-22 10:48 -0500
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:18 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references El Jo <giorgio.zoppi@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:41 -0800
    Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-11-22 13:51 -0800
  Re: An argument *against* (the liberal use of) references Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-11-23 20:08 +0100

csiph-web