From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9749 invoked by alias); 4 Sep 2008 16:25:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 9739 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Sep 2008 16:25:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (HELO smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com) (205.234.170.134) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Sep 2008 16:25:10 +0000 Received: from smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D37320BB4; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:25:19 +0000 (UTC) X-Authenticated-Name: js.dnsmadeeasy X-Transit-System: In case of SPAM please contact abuse@dnsmadeeasy.com Received: from avtrex.com (unknown [173.8.135.205]) by smtp1.dnsmadeeasy.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 4 Sep 2008 16:25:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dl2.hq2.avtrex.com ([192.168.7.26]) by avtrex.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 4 Sep 2008 09:25:07 -0700 Message-ID: <48C00BE2.3050702@avtrex.com> Date: Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:37:00 -0000 From: David Daney User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080723) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Haley Cc: Java Patch List Subject: Re: Remove data race in libgcj interpreter References: <48AD67B2.4040308@redhat.com> <48C0042C.5080804@redhat.com> <48C00606.2040205@avtrex.com> <48C008C3.5000300@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <48C008C3.5000300@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q3/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 Andrew Haley wrote: > David Daney wrote: >> Andrew Haley wrote: >>> + >>> + #ifdef DIRECT_THREADED >>> + CHECK_INSN (&&insn_instanceof); >>> + #endif /* DIRECT_THREADED */ >>> + >> Just a little style pedantry... >> >> Should we re-write the CHECK_INSN macro so that it is a nop ifndef >> DIRECT_THREADED? >> >> That would make the many places you have this construct look much cleaner. > > OK, but would it be easier to understand when reading the code? That's > why I didn't do that. Sometimes clarity and cleanliness don't go > together. What do you think? For me there are two issues: 1) Mutex free synchronization scares me. But That part of the patch seems plausible. 2) Of much less importance is the question of littering the code with #ifdef. I stated my preference, but don't feel strongly enough about it that I would be offended if your original patch were committed. David Daney