This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [Patch/RFC] tr1::shared_ptr<> removal of lock, choosing thread safety
Paolo Carlini wrote:
+// { dg-options "-march=i586 -pthread" { target { {*-*-freebsd*
*-*-netbsd* *-*-linux* alpha*-*-osf*} && { *i686*-*-* *i586*-*-*
*athlon*-*-* *pentium4*-*-* *opteron*-*-* *k8*-*-* } } } }
+// { dg-options "-pthread" { target { {*-*-freebsd* *-*-netbsd*
*-*-linux* alpha*-*-osf*} && { ! { *i686*-*-* *i586*-*-* *athlon*-*-*
*pentium4*-*-* *opteron*-*-* *k8*-*-* } } } } }
+// { dg-options "-pthreads" { target *-*-solaris* } }
+// { dg-do run { target *-*-freebsd* *-*-netbsd* *-*-linux*
*-*-solaris* *-*-cygwin *-*-darwin* alpha*-*-osf* } }
Are we really, really, sure we don't try to run the test on targets
*not* providing the builtin atomics? What about old Sparc, for
example? For now, outside the special x86 case, maybe better running
the test only when _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS is defined...
I'm thinking that maybe you can split this test in two: a first,
generic, version, stressing whatever base class the target uses; a
second one, stressing the lockfree base, and running for now only on a
small, conservative set of targets.
Paolo.