Java: add flag_use_atomic_builtins

[Richard Guenther]

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Boehm, Hans<hans.boehm@hp.com> 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?

I'm not aware of a proper implementation of the C++1x atomics or the memory
model for gcc.

Richard.