|  |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
 
  |   |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
  
    |  |  | 
  
    |   xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size. 
| 
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005, Jimi Xenidis wrote:
> Could we not simply avoid *subword* accesses in common code as a rule?
> It costs x86 nothing to do this and results in portable code.
it would help me too ...
ron
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
 | 
 
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |  | 
[Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Jimi Xenidis
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Ronald G. Minnich
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Jimi Xenidis
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Keir Fraser
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Keir Fraser
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Jimi Xenidis
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Ronald G. Minnich
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Keir Fraser
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Keir Fraser
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Ronald G. Minnich
Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: 32 bits as smallest atomic size., Ronald G. Minnich
 |  |  | 
  
    |  |  |