Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com From: jurgen.defurne@philips.com To: Subject: Re: cygwin on a 386? Message-ID: <0056900013072918000002L082*@MHS> Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 08:58:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; name="MEMO 10/20/00 08:50:47" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id CAA28073 What I mention is this : I presume that the interlocking mechanism is just to isolate a variable from being updated by another task, while the current task should do it. This has been possible since the early 8086. What I wondered is why the before mentioned instructions go through such great lengths to provide the necessary mechanisms. Jurgen cgf@redhat.com@SMTP@sources.redhat.com on 19/10/2000 18:32:09 Please respond to cygwin@sources.redhat.com@SMTP Sent by: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com To: cygwin@sources.redhat.com@SMTP cc: Subject: Re: cygwin on a 386? Classification: On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 08:36:09AM +0200, jurgen.defurne@philips.com wrote: >These instructions have their equivalent since the first 80x86. > LOCK > INC dest > > LOCK > XCHG dest,src > >Of course, these operate at most between a register and memory, not between memory and memory. Are you answering my question about whether Cygwin works on a 386? Somehow I can't figure this out from your message. You seem to be instructing me in assembly language, which wasn't what I was asking for. cgf -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe@sourceware.cygnus.com