From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin2!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Modified proposals for Ada-Comment
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 21:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lps928$llk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <lprvo8$mcl$1@dont-email.me> <ly8unyxpfv.fsf@pushface.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2014 21:24:24 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="d8085654192ae55367f4bc4f4fbf8c5b";
 logging-data="22196"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18+iKnoV1v2cf7BhvwJRj+dsPiy0kTghgY="
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:53QoxRIK418yLoBNF9/k5QUTlvI=
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:187543
Date: 2014-07-12T21:24:24+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 2014-07-12, Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> wrote:
> Simon Clubley <clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP> writes:
>
>> was defined as Atomic. However, the generated code showed that when a
>> bitfield, instead of the record as a whole, was referenced, GNAT used
>> ldrb/strb (byte level access instructions) instead of ldr/str (32 bit
>> access instructions) when the bitfield was within the first 8 bits
>> of the record.
>
> Likewise when the bitfield was in the MS 8 bits. I haven't tried with
> bitfields of length greater than 1.
>

Oops. :-) I missed that bit. (And I already pointed it out in response
to your other posting and had made a mental note to edit it at that
time. :-))

>> C.6(15) states:
>>
>> 	For an atomic object (including an atomic component) all reads and
>> 	updates of the object as a whole are indivisible.
>>
>> There are conflicting opinions about the above rule in comp.lang.ada.
>> The words "as a whole" in C.6(15) were used to justify the position
>> that access to this single bitfield is not required to be in units of
>> the record size which on the surface seemed reasonable.
>
> I think the problem is with the phrase "as a whole". If it means that
> partial access need not be indivisible it probably needs to spell it out
> better, because that is completely at odds with what I would expect of
> "atomic".
>

Oh, I agree. It will be interesting to see what Randy and company have
to say.

>> However, other opinions are that C.6(15) does apply when accessing
>> this single bitfield.
>
> I think that the "other opinions" are that "as a whole" is a mistake, so
> that C.6(15) should say
>
>    For an atomic object (including an atomic component) all reads and
>    updates of the object are indivisible.
>
>
> Aside from these niggles, a useful pair of proposals.

Thanks. I'll wait another day or so for further comments and then
submit the proposals.

Simon.

-- 
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world