Re: PR libgomp/56073: benchmark regression due to PR libgomp/51376 fix

[Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>]

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:00PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > > Looks good to me.
> > 
> > Thanks for the amazingly quick review!  Committed revision 195370.
> 
> Actually, there is one thing I'm worried about, -lgomp doesn't link against
> -latomic, and for !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS targets supposedly __atomic_load_n
> resp. __atomic_store_n might not be supported.  Not sure what targets
> are still !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTIN targets, but if there are any that support
> libgomp, either we should use normal loads/stores for those (on the
> assumption that targets without sync builtins supposedly don't have very
> relaxed consistency model), or would need to take the lock always for
> !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS and use normal loads/stores.

Seems for loads/stores <= wordsize we just assume they are atomic and expand
it as normal load or store (with optional barriers if target has any).
So supposedly it can work as is.

	Jakub