On Thu, Jan 31, 2002 at 08:02:25PM -0800, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Hiroyuki Machida wrote: > > Please note that "sc" may fail even if nobody write the > > variable. (See P.211 "8.4.2 Load-Linked/Sotre-Conditional" of "See > > MIPS RUN" for more detail.) > > So, after your patch applied, compare_and_swap() may fail, even if > > *p is equal to oldval. > > I can't think of anything that will break because of this, as long > as the compare_and_swap eventually succeeds on some subsequent trial. > If the atomic operation has to abort for some reason other than *p being > unequal to oldval, that should be cool. Maybe we should document it in glibc, something like compare_and_swap compares the contents of a variable with an old value. If the values are equal and a new value is stored in the variable atomically, 1 is returned; otherwise, 1 is returned. H.J.
