From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 11:52:02 -0400
From: pip pip@cpu.khimaira.com
Subject: [9fans] TAS
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 98db68ac-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <19990619155202.vobGUQCd-FWL1YqAHi4GraMGao-E7B28nfqXMg_tD8A@z>



On Sat, 19 Jun 1999, Nigel Roles wrote:

>>> Why implement as a call? Because inlining is not supported by the
>>> compiler,
I think you may have misunderstood what I meant when I said 'inline'. I
did not mean like gcc's __inline__ or C++ inline fxns. I meant doing it
maually.

>>> anyway the instruction sequence has a very strong chance of being
>>> cached as it is used a lot, so performance is not really an issue.
???


>>> Does this make it less atomic? No. The assembler instruction is just
>>> as atomic as it was before. This is all that matters.
But what about the additional stack manipulations involved in a function
call ? I agree that things have to be done the way they are, and that
advantage has to be taken of the processors equivalent of a TSL
instruction.