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][AArch64] Testcase fix for __ATOMIC_CONSUME


On Feb 11, 2015, at 12:16 PM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-02-09 at 09:10 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
>> On Feb 9, 2015, at 7:11 AM, Alex Velenko <Alex.Velenko@arm.com> wrote:
>>> The following patch makes atomic-op-consume.c XFAIL
>>> 
>>> Is this patch ok?
>> 
>> Ok.
>> 
>> I’d shorten the comment above the xfail to be exceedingly short:
>> 
>>  /* PR59448 consume not implemented yet */
>> 
>> The reason is the brain can process this about 8x faster.  Also, one can cut and paste the PR part into a web browser directly, or, if you have an electric bugzilla mode for emacs, it will pop right up. */
> 
> Given the discussions we had in ISO C++ SG1, it seems the only way to
> fix memory_order_consume is to deprecate it (or let it rot forever), and
> add something else to the standard.  See
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2014/n4321.pdf

Nice paper, thanks.

> IOW, I believe the promotion is here to stay.  I'm not aware of any
> other implementation doing something else.
> 
> Thus, XFAIL doesn't seem right to me.

Since Jakub in PR64930 updated to the now expected output instead of xfail, and given the paper above, easy to agree with this.  The changes to remove the xfail and expect the now expected codegen are pre-approved.


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