Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-ID:	<008e01c176ff$65579060$578208d2@itdomain.net.au>
From:	"Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To:	<cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
References:	<20011127014725 DOT GA13222 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject:	Re: consistent version of Interlocked* functions
Date:	Tue, 27 Nov 2001 15:48:14 +1100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2462.0000
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2462.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	27 Nov 2001 04:46:08.0053 (UTC) FILETIME=[6DE43E50:01C176FE]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 12:47 PM
Subject: consistent version of Interlocked* functions


> A while ago, I wrote (or acquired -- can't remember exactly) some inline
> assembly versions of the Interlocked* functions but never ended up
> adding them to cygwin.
> 
> It occurred to me today that I should dust these off again and use them
> in the cygwin source.  Why?  In addition to the fact that they should be
> faster than the ones available from the library, they also are
> consistent on all versions of Windows.  I.e., the value returned by
> InterlockedIncrement is the incremented value, not some random value
> with the same sign as the value.
> 
> The only thing I'm not sure about is if there is a corner case that I
> missed.  Everything works fine "for me" but you never know...
> 
> The functions are below.
> 
> Are there any objections to my using these?  Robert?  The thread code
> would be the most affected, of course.

I'll do a little research and get back to you.

Rob

- Raw text -