On Sat, Sep 15, 2018 at 11:14:03AM +0900, Akira Yokosawa wrote:
> >From 7bf9ee029829a53009e29ea23b287bb874bd8ee4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2018 22:50:04 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] count: Reword Quick Quiz 5.6 to adjust context
>
> count_nonatomic.c has lost the explicit "++" operator, so this is
> my humble attempt to update the question.
>
> Signed-off-by: Akira Yokosawa <akiyks@xxxxxxxxx>
I adjusted it slightly, then applied and pushed it, thank you!
Could you please double check that I didn't mess something up?
Thanx, Paul
> ---
> Paul,
>
> Does this change look reasonable to you?
> I'm quite sure you will come up with something better. ;-)
>
> Thanks, Akira
> --
> count/count.tex | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/count/count.tex b/count/count.tex
> index cfdacb5..6a48b99 100644
> --- a/count/count.tex
> +++ b/count/count.tex
> @@ -193,7 +193,9 @@ Although approximate values do have their place in computing,
> accuracies far greater than 50\,\% are almost always necessary.
>
> \QuickQuiz{}
> - But doesn't the \co{++} operator produce an x86 add-to-memory
> + But doesn't a smart compiler prove
> + line~\ref{ln:count:count_nonatomic:inc-read:inc} is equivalent
> + to the \co{++} operator and produce an x86 add-to-memory
> instruction?
> And won't the CPU cache cause this to be atomic?
> \QuickQuizAnswer{
> --
> 2.7.4
>
>
