lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:16:33PM +0000, Mark Batty wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Thanks for the document. I'm looking forward to reading the bits about
> dependency chains in Linux.

And I am looking forward to your thoughts on those bits!

> > One point of confusion for me... Example 4 says "language must allow".
> > Shouldn't that be "language is permitted to allow"?
>
> When we say "allow", we mean that the optimised execution should be
> allowed by the specification, and Implicitly, the unoptimised
> execution should remain allowed too. We want to be concrete about what
> the language specification allows, and that's why we say "must". It is
> not to disallow the unoptimised execution.

OK, got it!

Thanx, Paul

> > Seems like an
> > implementation is always within its rights to avoid an optimization if
> > its implementation prevents it from safely detecting the oppportunity
> > for that optimization.
>
> That's right.
>
> - Mark
>
>
> > Or am I missing something here?
> >
> > Thanx, Paul
> >
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-18 19:01    [W:0.156 / U:0.652 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site