From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 9F6BD3858C2D; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 23:30:23 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 9F6BD3858C2D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1674775823; bh=q2zqOEyLAAVCvkCLMmm7tnsHYLdK0NbMB7rWp1lI9I8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=Ovts6HiQp95wfbglA45/kD5CO+EwpplLLu5CP0JoBwGRC9vkSbQac1YaRtX7/H/1z smKPyHO7cmMVjISqPfaYyhuKiWZf4+6LpINHgjvRjw40HYFnHudMxMkZCS6WCUjTI7 2xOCNhW/oDlM2D6S2UwbBx7GPrrYD8OgjBjMGtcc= From: "palmer at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/104338] RISC-V: Subword atomics result in library calls Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 23:30:20 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: missed-optimization X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: palmer at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: patrick at rivosinc dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104338 --- Comment #12 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org --- I've got a somewhat recently rebased version of Patrick's patch floating around, it passed testing but I got hung up on the futex_time64 thing and forgot about it. Not sure if folks think it's too late for the upcoming CGC release, but I wouldn't be opposed to taking it -- looks like distros aro g= oing to apply workarounds if we don't do something, so at least this way there'l= l be a single workaround in trunk. There's some bigger fixes in the works for the whole memory model as we've = got other issues, but since those are a bit tricker it might be worth just doing the stop-gap thing for now.=