From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/11/2025 3:02 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:   
   > On 12/11/2025 1:05 AM, David Brown wrote:   
   >> On 10/12/2025 21:10, MitchAlsup wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> David Brown  posted:   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >>>> OK.  I can see the advantages of that - though there are disadvantages   
   >>>> too (such as being unable to control a limit on the number of retries,   
   >>>> or add SW tracking of retry counts for metrics).   
   >>>   
   >>> esm attempts to allow SW to program with features previously available   
   >>> only at the µCode level. µCode allows for many µinstructions to execute   
   >>> before/between any real instructions.   
   >>>   
   >>>>                                 
   Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  My main concern was   
   >>>> the disconnect between how the code was written and what it actually   
   >>>> does.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Perhaps it would be better to think of these sequences in assembler   
   >> rather than C - you want tighter control than C normally allows, and   
   >> you don't want optimisers re-arranging things too much.   
   >   
   > Right. Way back before C/C++ 11 I would code all of my sensitive lock/   
   > wait-free code in assembly.   
   >   
   > [...]   
   >   
   >   
   >   
      
   Actually, I would turn off link-time optimization back then.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)