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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 109fba,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: 115aec,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,703c4f68db81387d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,gid109fba,gid115aec,gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!12.120.4.37!attcg2!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.realtime,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Teaching new tricks to an old dog (C++ -->Ada)
Date: 8 Mar 2005 14:23:23 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <WT5IS1ZkqE0F@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <4229bad9$0$1019$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>
   <1110032222.447846.167060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <871xau9nlh.fsf@insalien.org>
   <3SjWd.103128$Vf.3969241@news000.worldonline.dk>
   <87r7iu85lf.fsf@insalien.org>   <1110052142.832650@athnrd02>
   <d0dkq6$781$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <1110284070.410136.205090@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
 <395uqaF5rhu2mU1@individual.net> <112rs0bdr2aftdf@corp.supernews.com>
 <1inxxr988rxgg$.1w9dedak41k89.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1110313369 17041 192.135.80.34 (8 Mar 2005
 20:22:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2005 20:22:49 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:8881 comp.lang.c++:44652
 comp.realtime:1080 comp.software-eng:4636
Date: 2005-03-08T14:23:23-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <1inxxr988rxgg$.1w9dedak41k89.dlg@40tude.net>, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 13:33:33 -0500, CTips wrote:

>> Given a processor with load-word-locked and store-word-conditional, how 
>> would I build an atomic increment function?
> 
> Why should I have atomic increment function? Ada has native concurrency
> support. But if somebody would need that extremely low level thing as
> atomic integers, then:
> 
> protected type Atomic_Integer is
>    procedure Increment;
> private
>    Value : Integer;
> end Atomic_Integer;
> 
> -- Implementation
> protected body Atomic_Integer is
>    procedure Increment is
>    begin
>       Value := Value + 1;
>    end Increment;
> end Atomic_Integer;

In other words, the code generator within the Ada compiler takes care
of the load-locked store-conditional aspects of the architecture.

What Dmitry has shown is how the programmer accesses that capability.