This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
- From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer dot com>
- To: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 00:19:47 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: New atomics not mentioned in /gcc-4.7/changes.html
- References: <CAH6eHdRKT1uxhertPTGuUDHSaE4YgWdvjynHKvtmmfhbSWj-7A@mail.gmail.com> <4F32D4F4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <CAH6eHdTHre6th8KRWokKPqWqGEOMA5RMBv+o48Zj-w5-PzNE5w@mail.gmail.com> <4F32EDF5.email@example.com>
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
OK, hows this look? I added a link in the news as well.
+ <dt><span>Atomic memory model support</span>
+ <span class="date">[2011-11-06]</span></dt>
+ <dd>C++11/C11 <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM">memory model</a>
+ support has been added through a new set of built-in __atomic functions.
+ These new functions allow a memory model to be specified for an
+ operation and some targets may produce more efficient barriers and
+ synchronization code. Generic atomic support has also been added to allow
+ arbitrary sized data to be treated as atomic, and in turn the C++ atomic
+ class has been updated to allow atomic classes to be any size.
This news item on the main page is quite long if you compare it with the
others and probably fills most of that column on page 1; could you cut
this signficantly and instead link to the gcc-4.7/changes.html and have
some of the good general background there?
Also, wouldn't you want to name who has contributed that? (See some
old items for a couple of examples.) That is purely optional, I think
it's kinda nice, though, and your employer might appreciate it, too. :-)
+ Support for atomic operations specifying the C++11/C11 memory model have
+ been added. These new __atomic routines replace the existing __sync
+ built-in routines.
Would that be <code>__atomic<code> and <code>__sync</code>