This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3] rs6000: Rewrite sync patterns for atomic; expand early.
On Jun 12, 2012, at 6:40 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-06-11 18:40, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Nope. I do see the obvious mistake in the atomic_load pattern though:
>>> The mode iterator should have been INT1 not INT.
>>
>> Did you want to commit the fix for the iterator?
>
> Yes. I'm just finishing testing that patch in fact.
>
>> I like your suggestion, but the PowerPC developer community does not
>> uniformly appreciate that behavior.
>
> Surely there's a difference between gratuitously using fp registers
> and that being the *only* way to implement a particular operation...
I think this would be a good question to ask the hard real time low latency interrupt crowd, I was going to say they prefer low latency interrupts, but, to the extent you have to use a slow mechanism instead of using DI atomic FPRs... I'm not sure how they would weigh in. Maybe the RTEMS, Ada or CodeSourcery people can weigh in...