Re: [boost] [atomic] comments

Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] comments
From: Helge Bahmann (hcb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-01 02:29:54

> > might be possible, the problem is that this assumes that there is
> > atomic<something> available -- as soon as you hit a platform where
> > everything hits the fallback, you just have to use a mutex and the cost
> > becomes unbearable
>
> True. But are there realistic platforms without any support of atomic ops
> whatsoever today? If there are, I'm not sure the library should support
> these platforms in the first place.

there is PA-RISC which only supports LDCW which must be cacheline-aligned -- 
as a result, each atomic value would have the size of one cacheline

(whether PA-RISC should be supported is another question)