Re:No sane compiler would optimize atomics (2015)
by burnished on Sunday July 11, 2021 @11:04PM
(#27806498)
'atomic' isn't uncuttable in the sense that it is irreducible, but in the sense that it cannot be stopped/does not produce intermediaries. If you write four atomic instructions you should expect that they will not be interrupted, nothing more. of course I'm not an expert, but I think that is where your misunderstanding has originated.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:No sane compiler would optimize atomics (2015)
by overgard on Sunday July 11, 2021 @11:20PM
(#27806598)
> 'atomic' isn't uncuttable
Well then it's a pretty bad name no? Considering what the word atomic means.
Re:No sane compiler would optimize atomics (2015)
by jcelerier on Monday July 12, 2021 @02:40AM
(#27807722)
Did you even read the post you're replying to. "Uncuttable" can apply to multiple properties of an instruction's execution - "atomic" colloquially refers to one of these properties.
You seem to want "atomic" to mean "the data that corresponds to the instruction cannot be divided" but it means "the execution of the instruction cannot be divided", those aren't the same thing.
Re:No sane compiler would optimize atomics (2015)
by burnished on Monday July 12, 2021 @01:55PM
(#27813094)
The four hardest problems in computer science are cache invalidation, naming stuff, and off by one errors. Please accept that your understanding was flawed and have empathy for the people who named stuff.