> That's true for x86, but it seems that for s390, we can't easily put the > xbegin/tbegin into the C++ code because of floating point register > save/restore issues. The added complexity on the x86 side seemed to be > a reasonable price for having a general HTM fast path retry handling on > the C++ side.
I don't see much point in trying to unify these fast paths for very different implementations with different properties. It would not surprise me if the highly tuned end result is different. It's kind of like trying to write a portable high performance memcpy(). -Andi -- a...@linux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
