Well, according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Virtual_address_space_detailsit might be dangerous to rely on the fact that top 16 bits are not
currently used.
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 15:03:21 -0700, Tim Blechmann <
tim@...> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 12:43:39 -0800, Cory Nelson wrote:
>
>> On Jan 18, 2008 9:56 AM, Jeffrey Yasskin <
jyasskin@...> wrote:
>>> using shared_ptr<T> as a value type. The implementation I'm thinking of
>>> uses hazard pointers
>>> (
http://erdani.org/publications/cuj-2004-12.pdf) and double-wide-cas
>>> (cmpxchg16b on x86-64). So I have three questions for this list:
>>
>> Athlon 64s (pre-dual core) do not have cmpxchg16b - how do you plan to
>> get around that?
>
> iirc, the x86_64 doesn't actually use a 64-bit virtual address space, but
> only 48-bit ... the remaining 16 bit could be used to store the tag ...
>
> best, tim
>
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
