Re: Forcing GNAT to use 32-bit load/store instructions on ARM?

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 14-07-02 00:20 , Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2014-07-01, Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> wrote:
>> On 14-07-01 23:40 , Simon Clubley wrote:
>>> On 2014-07-01, daniel.dmk@googlemail.com <daniel.dmk@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> So could there be a problem with GNAT's Atomic on ARM?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, big time.
>>
>> No. The Atomic guarantee only applies to read/write of the whole record.
>> My earlier post in this thread was in error.
>>
> 
> That's interesting, and depressing, as it reduces the usefulness of
> Atomic hugely.
> 
> When c.l.a talked a few weeks ago about syntax for the atomic update
> of multiple bitfields at the same time, I had thought the general
> view was that Atomic on a record resulted in register updates in units
> of the record size when updating a single bitfield, but that's clearly
> not the case as you have just pointed out.

As I remember, the new syntax ideas in that discussion were meant to
update some bitfields in an atomic record as part of a read, modify,
write sequence, accessing the whole record without using a temporary
variable to hold the value. So Ada's rule for Atomic was included and
assumed in that discussion. I am ashamed for forgetting it... maybe
there have been too many midnight-football-viewing sessions lately :-)

> I think this whole area of the atomic updating of multiple bitfields is
> something which needs work in Ada especially now the above revelation
> means Ada is even weaker in this specific area than I thought it was.

I don't think the weakness is serious. Using a temporary variable to
ensure whole-record access is a pretty clean work-around, IMO. But the
new aggregate-like syntax suggested in the earlier discussion could be
used for other things, too, so I am still in favour of it.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .