This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/51766] [4.7 regression] sync_fetch_and_xxx atomicity
- From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:22:01 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/51766] [4.7 regression] sync_fetch_and_xxx atomicity
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-51766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-10 18:22:01 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> IBM should have the freedom to choose memory
> models that benefit its architectures.
I meant to add that the new __atomic builtins give that freedom, by design.
Changing the documented behaviour of the __sync builtins to do something they
weren't designed for doesn't seem like a good idea - if they're inefficient
then convince people not to use them.