Re: toolchain/54431: Missing 64-bit atomics on 32-bit platforms

[Jason Thorpe <thorpej%me.com@localhost>]

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 5:30 AM, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> 
> Any correct implementation will involve a system and hashing of the
> physical address of the access memory for larger-than-pointer access for
> any operation. I'm pretty sure that is going to kill the performance of
> a lot of those users. It doesn't help that there is no way for the user
> to promise that a certain memory address is not shared...

There are other implementations possible, but yah, they could be really slow.  But maybe slow-but-hey-it-works-at-least is OK?

-- thorpej