This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at linaro dot org>
- To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <david dot gilbert at linaro dot org>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com, joseph at codesourcery dot com, patches at linaro dot org
- Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:45:20 +0100
- Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
- References: <20110701155254.GA5242@davesworkthinkpad> <CACUk7=XU8JS+NmcCeKMWQX=WfUeJ4Yn3J+sSk_jOEjOk10EcVg@mail.gmail.com> <20110726085910.GA6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090039.GB6925@davesworkthinkpad> <20110726090115.GC6925@davesworkthinkpad>
On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> +
> +extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int count);
Why are we using __write instead of write?
A comment elaborating that this file should only be in the static
libgcc and never in the dynamic libgcc would be useful, given that the
constructor is only pulled in only if a 64 bit sync primitive is
referred to.
cheers
Ramana