From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 081B6BC3F for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:07:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9U27VqH018020 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:07:31 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id EAA01844 for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:07:31 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from mail.davidb.org (adsl-64-172-240-129.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net [64.172.240.129]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id i9U27SHu018017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 30 Oct 2004 04:07:30 +0200 Received: from davidb by mail.davidb.org with local (Exim 4.42 #1 (Debian)) id 1CNieJ-0003ID-Bg; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:07:23 -0700 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 19:07:23 -0700 From: David Brown To: skaller Cc: David Brown , Ker Lutyn , caml-list Subject: Re: [Caml-list] atomicity guarantees for threaded code Message-ID: <20041030020723.GA12611@old.davidb.org> References: <20041029163907.36287.qmail@web40611.mail.yahoo.com> <20041029215027.GA9504@old.davidb.org> <1099094075.11063.215.camel@pelican.wigram> <20041030003249.GA11524@old.davidb.org> <1099098448.11063.284.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1099098448.11063.284.camel@pelican.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4182F763.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 4182F760.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 caml-list:01 wrote:01 ocaml:01 aligned:01 aligned:01 perhaps:03 threaded:03 argue:06 machine:08 dave:08 bit:10 though:11 but:12 but:12 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: On Sat, Oct 30, 2004 at 11:07:28AM +1000, skaller wrote: > > But, a reference in ocaml will always be in a block, which will always be > > aligned. > > On what boundary? > > Even x86 will be atomic with a 32-bit transfer that is aligned. > > But perhaps not a 64 bit one. I would argue that on a machine with 64-bit addresses, you can assume that 64-bit, aligned loads and stores will be atomic. There is just too much code that wouldn't work. Other assumptions are hard to make, though. Dave