This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2013 09:50:38 +0100
- Subject: Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5245D83C dot 8010200 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1311062202360 dot 3878 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:07:36PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The patch I've posted at
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-11/msg00493.html> is intended to
> be mainline-ready (with the hopes that other people may pick up the ObjC
> and OpenMP issues, and floating-point handling for non-x86 targets, once
For OpenMP, the current standards (including 4.0) only cover C89/C99, but
not C11, so mixing C11 _Atomic with OpenMP is in the unspecified
category; sorry on any use of _Atomic with -fopenmp is too strict, but I
guess at least until the standard starts supporting C11 we are on our own to
define how the two features should coexist. I'd say it would be safest to
disallow _Atomic in most of the clauses at least for the time being,
allow it in shared clause. Because, what would be behavior of say
privatized _Atomic variable (or firstprivate, lastprivate, copyin,
reduction, ...)?
Also using _Atomic for say OpenMP loop iterators sounds weird (but, that is
essentially the matter of privatization too).
Jakub