From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-288875-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 30652 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2011 15:29:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 30644 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Apr 2011 15:29:32 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from cantor2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:29:28 +0000
Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.221.2])	by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C38890B6;	Wed,  6 Apr 2011 17:29:26 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2011 15:29:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>
Cc: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>,	Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com>,	gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [cxx-mem-model] bitfield tests
In-Reply-To: <4D99C086.2000304@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1104061728420.19760@wotan.suse.de>
References: <4D92103E.90100@redhat.com> <AANLkTinhL-oAOyXfDhcoMD7iE8FLRSuJ7FvH-MGqO4Rk@mail.gmail.com> <4D933A2E.9030105@redhat.com> <AANLkTi=9XUrhoX=aDKe4gpAXZTQzjbGHynRhfq-d2+=L@mail.gmail.com> <4D949416.5000307@redhat.com> <AANLkTik1B3amz16SJxNc8YD3r7bt9goMPU3xuKL0mG4J@mail.gmail.com> <4D95FC41.5060003@redhat.com> <BANLkTinViVtLVWuH+qmnizQDKDOqZMkxyg@mail.gmail.com> <4D99C086.2000304@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Mon, 4 Apr 2011, Aldy Hernandez wrote:

> 
> > > (5) Do we agree that all such cpus use a byte-granular modification mask?
> 
> > Now, as of (0) I might agree to disregard the original Alpha, but as the
> > embedded world moves to SMP I'm not sure we can disregard
> > non-cache coherent NUMA setups or even CPUs without a byte store.
> 
> As per 5, it doesn't matter if the CPU lacks a byte store, since the 
> cache has a byte-granular modification mask.

If it doesn't have byte stores there's no need for byte-granular 
modification masks :)


Ciao,
Michael.