Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "__transaction".
Did you mean:
b_transaction
2010 Oct 01
2
[LLVMdev] interest in support for Transactional Memory?
...know whether the community is interested in getting support
for Transactional Memory (TM) merged in upstream LLVM. TM basically gives you
transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for
ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, you
could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would transform this
code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does concurrency control for
the memory accesses in a transaction. Recent studies support the assumption
that shared-memory synchronization with transactions is supposed to be a lot
easier than...
2010 Oct 26
0
[LLVMdev] interest in support for Transactional Memory?
...erested in getting support
> for Transactional Memory (TM) merged in upstream LLVM.
I guess not :(
TM basically gives you
> transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for
> ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe, you
> could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would transform this
> code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does concurrency control for
> the memory accesses in a transaction. Recent studies support the assumption
> that shared-memory synchronization with transactions is supposed to be a lot...
2010 Oct 27
2
[LLVMdev] interest in support for Transactional Memory?
On Tuesday 26 October 2010 14:33:02 Duncan Sands wrote:
> > transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for
> > ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe,
> > you could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would
> > transform this code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does
> > concurrency control for the memory accesses in a transaction. Recent
> > studies support the assumption that shared-memory synchronization with
> > transactions...
2010 Oct 27
0
[LLVMdev] interest in support for Transactional Memory?
...27, 2010, at 8:01, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 October 2010 14:33:02 Duncan Sands wrote:
>>> transaction properties (eg, virtually atomic + isolated execution) for
>>> ordinary program code. Thus, to make incrementing a counter thread-safe,
>>> you could say __transaction { counter++; } and the compiler would
>>> transform this code so that it uses a TM library, which in turn does
>>> concurrency control for the memory accesses in a transaction. Recent
>>> studies support the assumption that shared-memory synchronization with
>>>...