Atomic::cmpxchg_ptr code duplication

[Coleen Phillimore - Sun Microsystems]

I thought we had the extra version because of overloading compilation 
errors, but if you've tested it everywhere, it's probably fine.  Did you 
test against the newer pickier gcc?

thanks,
Coleen

On 04/02/09 16:57, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:54 -0700, John Coomes wrote:
>   
>> Paul Hohensee (Paul.Hohensee at Sun.COM) wrote:
>>     
>>> Sometimes compilers don't inline all the way through a call stack,
>>> i.e., they may have limits on inlining depth.  It's not a matter for
>>> the preprocessor, since we're talking methods, not macros.
>>>
>>> Assembly code template are things like gcc asm statements or
>>> .il functions.  Doesn't matter which.  What matters is whether the
>>> compiler actually inlines the asm code where you want it.
>>>       
>> That's the kind of thing I was actually wondering about, along with
>> portability--consolidating them only works if sizeof(void*) ==
>> sizeof(intptr_t) on every platform.  They're the same on the platforms
>> SE supports, but maybe there are some oddball embedded platforms
>> around.
>>     
>
> The only one I can think of is s390, which has 31-bit addresses.
>
> -- Christian
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/hotspot-dev/attachments/20090402/469f9929/attachment.html