------- Comment #19 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-08 14:54 ------- (In reply to comment #18) > Sure, this is the general idea. I'm a little bit concerned that for something > apparently so elemental as an addiction (atomic, yes...) we are going to add > a conditional, but probably, given the many cycles of atomics, it's ok. Any > chance you can benchmark a bit that? I gather you already played with adding > those checks, can you measure the overhead of the conditional alone compared > to not doing nothing (i.e., non-atomic inline addition/subtraction).
Actually, this kind of benchmarking is not necessary, because currently we are always using the normal atomics. We have only to check that the additional __gthread_active_p() conditional is not measurable wrt the atomics itself. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24704
