This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken for ColdFire targets

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Bernardo Innocenti <bernie at develer dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 11:55:14 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken for ColdFire targets
References: <200308040322.13087.bernie@develer.com> <20030804225241.GL10923@redhat.com> <200308051627.33859.bernie@develer.com>

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 04:27:33PM +0200, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> No, absolutely not. ColdFire cores don't provide the immediate
> addressing mode for the BSET instruction (probably because it
> would make the opcode too long for the simplified execution unit).

But immediate addressing is valid for _some_ instructions
on ColdFire?  If so, ok...


r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken forColdFire targets
  - From: Bernardo Innocenti

References:
- [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken for ColdFire targets
  - From: Bernardo Innocenti
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken for ColdFire targets
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [PATCH] Fix PR11784 - atomic __exchange_and_add() broken for ColdFire targets
  - From: Bernardo Innocenti

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]