This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug other/24692] Atomic builtins for v3
- From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 7 Nov 2005 10:23:31 -0000
- Subject: [Bug other/24692] Atomic builtins for v3
- References: <email@example.com/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-07 10:23 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Paolo, the only viable way to get these inlined looks like a libstdc++
> configure-time choice to say --disable-i386-support or sth like that. You then
> build libstdc++ against the atomic builtin primitives and at application
> build-time either try falling back with preprocessor stuff rth suggested, or
> don't do it and fail either at compile-time or later (maybe) at runtime with
> some SIGILL or whatever you'll get.
I would certainly be in favor of something like that, it's a real pity that
the vetust i386 blocks us in using the new builtins and inlining the atomic
I'm still convinced that something more general would be better, but I can
(rather easily) implement Rth idea too, otherwise. Of course it's still open
the task of preparing inline assembly implementing the various atomic
for arches which don't have (for one reason or another) the builtins...
> Supporting different architectures and inlining at the same time is not
> possible (well, apart from fixup by binary-patching at program startup, like
> the kernel does (or did?), of course ;))
Please provide a detailed scenario, again.