On 29/06/17 15:05, Toebs Douglass wrote: > I wrote: >> I may be utterly, utterly wrong, but I think what's happened makes >> perfect sense at each step of the way but has led to an outcome which >> is crazy. I publish a lock-free data structure library and I must >> specifically avoid libatomic. > > Sorry to be so unconstructive, though. I don't know enough about GCC > and libatomic to be able to meaningfully make other proposals; I can > only write as an end user. Well, yeah. We can only really blame ARM for this: they provided a double-word CAS but no way to define a double-word atomic load which does not also store. I hesitate to place blame on the ARM architects, a splendid and diligent bunch, but there it is. I have no idea why LDXP doesn't work as an atomic load, but it does not. -- Andrew Haley Java Platform Lead Engineer Red Hat UK Ltd. <https://www.redhat.com> EAC8 43EB D3EF DB98 CC77 2FAD A5CD 6035 332F A671
