Re: Java: add flag_use_atomic_builtins

[David Daney <ddaney at caviumnetworks dot com>]

Boehm, Hans wrote:
> [Partially replying to myself]
> > From:  Boehm, Hans
> >
> > At the risk of asking a stupid question, shouldn't all the 
> > code inside gcc gradually migrate towards using the C++0x 
> > (and probably C1x) atomics, which seem to be generally 
> > supported by gcc 4.4?
> >
> > There are known issues with __sync (no atomic loads and 
> > stores, underspecified ordering), which is why there wasn't 
> > much of an effort topush the __sync interface into C++0x.
> >
> > Hans
> OK.  That was largely a stupid question, since we're talking about the compiler implementation of those primitives, which presumably are shared with the atomic<T> implementation?

The generic implementation uses __sync*, but some individual targets 
have hand coded asm blocks.

David Daney