Re: [boost] Re: shared_ptr on ppc?

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-07 13:25:39

Marshall Clow wrote:
>> "Do not use the PowerPC instructions Load Reserved  (lwarx) and Store
>> Conditional  (stwcx) to implement atomicity in your preemptively
>> threaded application. As described in DTS Technote 1137 Disabling
>> Interrupts on the Traditional Mac OS, these instructions are
>> non-portable and are tricky to use correctly across the full
>> spectrum of PowerPC  implementations."
>
> A couple of posters have referred to this as "smells-like-FUD", and
> "fails to state any technical reasons".  To me, that sounds like denial.

The recommendation above is correct. The instructions are obviously 
non-portable and are, indeed, tricky to use correctly.

> Apple has committed to provide routines that work on all PPC CPU that
> they ship. Why in the world would you choose not to use them, if they
> do what you need?

Because their memory synchronization properties are not documented. They 
_probably_ are fully fenced. But it's not guaranteed. Even if it were 
guaranteed, we don't need a full fence.

> If I was writing this code, I would not want to take on the burden of
> research, testing, and ongoing maintenance that this implies.
> Certainly "It works fine on my machine" is not sufficient, given
> these warnings.  Off the top of my head, I would want to test against
> the 601, 603, 603e, 604, G3 (several revisions), G4 (several
> revisions) and G5.

CPUs do happen to have bugs. But this isn't very common, and the existing 
CPU bugs are usually well-known. "Programmers equate an atomic update with a 
full fence" is a much better explanation of Apple's warnings... on the basis 
of the available information.

They _could_ have identified a system where lwarx/stwcx. do not work 
reliably, after all.