cpuset macro /vs/ inline implementation

[Daniel Hellstrom]

I couldn't help my self, I just had to search for a 16-bit SMP machine.. ;)  Not that it matters at this point, but actually there are 16-bit dual-cores: 
http://www.maximintegrated.com/datasheet/index.mvp/id/6140

Daniel


On 10/31/2013 01:21 PM, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
> On 10/31/2013 12:38 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 2013-10-31 12:30, Daniel Hellstrom wrote:
>>> I see that the cpu_set_word_t is set to 32-bit which suites most CPUs, there is
>>> probably a good reason for it but would it make sens to make it dependent on
>>> the architecture? So that 64-bit machines have it sized to 64-bits. I'm not
>>> sure there are 16-bit SMP machines :) .
>>
>> No, this should be a fixed size integer for all architectures to allow static initialization.  Anyway it will be a long way for RTEMS to support 33 processors.
>
> So what is the point of having an array of 32-bits in the set? If there were a 16-bit SMP CPU would not performance be better to describe it with a 16-bit instead of an 32-bit word? Its probably not 
> realistic with a 16-bit SMP machine anyway, more realistic is a 64-bit SMP machine. Would the atomicity of having a 64-bit word instead of 32-bit word on a 64-bit machine matter? At this point we 
> haven't been discussing atomic cpusets, my guess is that other OSes have definitions for that and in that case on a 64-bit machine it could make sens, or what do you think?
>
> I agree that RTEMS will not see more than 32, or 16 for that matter, CPUs for a long time. That was not really my point.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-devel mailing list
> rtems-devel at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel