From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2F5833858C54; Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:29:50 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2F5833858C54 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, 07 Apr 2022 18:29:50 +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: cc 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 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2022 18:29:50 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D104338 palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kito.cheng at gmail dot com --- Comment #6 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org --- Kito pointed out earlier today that it should already be possible to defaul= t to libatomic via a --with-specs=3D... configure-time argument already, so one = option here would be to just add an example/reference spec to GCC. That would all= ow distros to opt in to the "always link libatomic" behavior, if they want to = risk the ABI-related issues like we see in libstdcxx (which we'd of course have = to fix). It doesn't sort out the long-tail issues related to ABI compatibility between GCC and LLVM (and the suggested mappings), but at least it gives fo= lks a unified mechanism for doing this. I know it's pretty late, but that seems like something we could do on the GCC-12 timeline. It seems like the distro folks are pretty fed up with wai= ting so they're just going to backport/hack this if we miss GCC-12, might as well have one way for that to happen.=