Re: add support for slists

[Dmitry Timoshkov]

And one more...

"Damjan Jovanovic" <damjan.jov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> +__int64 interlocked_cmpxchg64( __int64 **dest, __int64 *xchg, __int64 *compare )
> +{
> +    _lwp_mutex_lock( &interlocked_mutex );
> +    if (memcmp(*dest, compare, 8) == 0)
> +        memcpy(*dest, xchg, 8);
> +    else
> +        memcpy(compare, *dest);
> +    _lwp_mutex_unlock( &interlocked_mutex );
> +    return compare;
> +}

Is there any particular reason that you use memcmp/memcpy instead of
directly manipulating 64-bit values?

-- 
Dmitry.

add support for slists

[Tomas Carnecky]

Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
> And one more...
>
> "Damjan Jovanovic" <damjan.jov(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > +__int64 interlocked_cmpxchg64( __int64 **dest, __int64 *xchg, __int64
> > *compare )
> > +{
> > +    _lwp_mutex_lock( &interlocked_mutex );
> > +    if (memcmp(*dest, compare, 8) == 0)
> > +        memcpy(*dest, xchg, 8);
> > +    else
> > +        memcpy(compare, *dest);
> > +    _lwp_mutex_unlock( &interlocked_mutex );
> > +    return compare;
> > +}
>
> Is there any particular reason that you use memcmp/memcpy instead of
> directly manipulating 64-bit values?

also, compare is a pointer to __int64 but the return type is __int64.
Doesn't gcc complain about that?

tom