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: [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32

From: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:11:26 -0400
Subject: Re: [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32
References: <4EA08C57.7030204@redhat.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.1110202236240.8092@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <CAMe9rOoWGCu4=Uza26jHak2HVOL6dY5OCN7VDO7JSWJSQxDsXA@mail.gmail.com>

On 10/20/2011 06:50 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com>  wrote:


Do these operations exist for x32 as well as for -m64?  If they do, then
lp64 isn't the right test either; if not, then it is.

X32 has native int64 and int128.

I presume there is no atomic support for int128 though, and thats what 'condition check_effective_target_sync_int_128' is testing for.

Andrew

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32
  - From: H.J. Lu

References:
- [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32
  - From: Aldy Hernandez
- Re: [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: [cxx-mem-model] Handle x86-64 with -m32
  - From: H.J. Lu

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