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: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements

From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
To: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
Cc: Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:32:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
References: <4F7B5218.6070609@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc23=L-9Qtn-vWuKa6BiSoRzHi=+SRmL-mMngdxS8xF9NA@mail.gmail.com> <4F7C4C14.7010203@redhat.com> <CAFiYyc2b+Q7KdyRpemz8p9499rsN4F2XLZ_M6JwHzmuc6NEAKg@mail.gmail.com>

On 04/04/2012 09:46 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> If that is the only reason you can return two values by using a complex
> or vector type (that would be only an IL implementation detail as far
> as I can see).
> We use that trick to get sincos () "sane" in our IL as well.

That would work if the two values were of the same type, as they
are with sincos.  In the case of compare_exchange, they are not.

r~

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
  - From: Richard Guenther

References:
- [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
  - From: Andrew MacLeod
- Re: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
  - From: Richard Guenther
- Re: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
  - From: Richard Henderson
- Re: [C11-atomic] [patch] gimple atomic statements
  - From: Richard Guenther

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