[LLVMdev] Atomic operations: minimal or maximal?
sabre at nondot.org
Mon Mar 3 13:47:50 PST 2008
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> we have a large set of atomic ops that most platforms support natively
> and the couple that don't can easily lower, or have a minimal set and
> try to raise the lowered gcc atomic ops to efficient code on archs
> that support ll/sc (essentially trying to recognize the ld, op, CAS
> loops during codegen).
I'd suggest starting with a minimal set. It's easier to add things lazily
as needed than it is to take things out that end up not being needed.
More information about the llvm-dev