This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <david dot gilbert at linaro dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com, joseph at codesourcery dot com, patches at linaro dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:01:12 -0700
- Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- References: <20110701155254.GA5242@davesworkthinkpad> <CACUk7=XU8JS+NmcCeKMWQX=WfUeJ4Yn3J+sSk_jOEjOk10EcVg@mail.gmail.com> <20110726085910.GA6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090039.GB6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090115.GC6925@davesworkthinkpad> <CACUk7=VDwc8aQvA1dT22BFFGaMy=is4CEOYWq1R_-YYxO=vnTg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int count);
>
> Why are we using __write instead of write?
>
> A comment elaborating that this file should only be in the static
> libgcc and never in the dynamic libgcc would be useful, given that the
> constructor is only pulled in only if a 64 bit sync primitive is
> referred to.
>
You may want to look a look at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583
ARM may have the same problem.
--
H.J.