This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "torvalds at linux-foundation dot org" <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, "akpm at linux-foundation dot org" <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, "mingo at kernel dot org" <mingo at kernel dot org>, "paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2014 23:33:23 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140206134825 dot 305510953 at infradead dot org> <21984 dot 1391711149 at warthog dot procyon dot org dot uk> <52F3DA85 dot 1060209 at arm dot com> <20140206185910 dot GE27276 at mudshark dot cambridge dot arm dot com> <1391720965 dot 23421 dot 3884 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402062147020 dot 17635 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <1391729117 dot 23421 dot 4066 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> I think that if we have different options, there needs to be agreement
> on which to choose across the compilers, at the very least. I don't
> quite know how this looks like for GCC and LLVM, for example.
I'm not sure we even necessarily get compatibility for the alignment of
_Atomic types yet (and no ABI document I've seen discusses that issue).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com