On Wed, 23 May 2001, Joe deBlaquiere wrote: > Could not have said it better myself. If you have the emulation then you > can always use a noLLSC version of glibc if you are performance-driven. I think there is some misunderstanding here -- I thought you are recommending to drop the non-ll/sc code from glibc. > Otherwise you can _also_ use the generic LLSC version. The overhead of > having a few hundreds of words of code is pretty small (compared with > 70+k of filenames via the BUG() macro) and ensures that either glibc > will work. It's the best of both worlds. Can't agree more. -- + Maciej W. Rozycki, Technical University of Gdansk, Poland + +--------------------------------------------------------------+ + e-mail: macro@ds2.pg.gda.pl, PGP key available +
