This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: atomic accesses
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 10:50:17PM +0000, Paul Brook wrote:
> > AFAIK the only reason we don't break this rule is that doing so would
> > be grossly inefficient; there's nothing to stop any gcc back-end with
> > (say) seriously slow DImode writes from using two SImode writes instead.
> I'm fairly sure ARM already breaks this "rule".
Hm, just out of curiosity, does not Java require 32-bit stores to be
atomic? I do not know Java well but I think it does. Do we observe
this language-specific rule on ARM then? Do we do it because 32 bit is
small enough or do we have a mechanism for that?