This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug middle-end/51766] [4.7 regression] sync_fetch_and_xxx atomicity
- From: "dje at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:33:56 +0000
- Subject: [Bug middle-end/51766] [4.7 regression] sync_fetch_and_xxx atomicity
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-51766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766
--- Comment #11 from David Edelsohn <dje at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-10 18:33:56 UTC ---
Jonathan,
I understand that the new __atomic_* builtins provide that flexibility.
I also am pointing out that GCC followed Intel semantics and Intel chose
semantics to benefit them. Why should GCC prefer and impose semantics that
advantage a particular architecture or vendor?
You can argue that the __sync_* definition is the playing field and the rule
and POWER has to deal with it. And I am responding that the builtins were
implemented appropriate for POWER and now GCC has moved the goal post.