public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "palmer at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.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 14:57:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-104338-4-pkxnyOokAM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-104338-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104338

--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to rvalue from comment #4)
> In short term, maybe we can change the spec to link against libatomic by
> default (implemented in
> https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gcc/commit/
> 2c4857d0981501b7c50bbf228de9e287611f8ae5). It will solve a lot of build
> errors if we revert the value of `LIB_SPEC` instead of only link against
> libatomic when `-pthread` is present.
> 
> Detailed talk about this:
> https://github.com/riscv-collab/riscv-gcc/issues/337

We talked through some options like that and decided it was too risky for
GCC-12.  We already found one ABI break related to this (see 84568), and want
to make sure we give distros adequate advance notice before something that we
know to break ABIs.

That said, it's really not a GCC ABI break, it's a per-package configure issue.
 We can fix the libstdcxx fallout, which is the only bit we know about right
now (though it's not like we've scrubbed builds for this).  If the folks
building distros think it's better to risk the ABI breaks rather than chase
around the build failures, then I'm fine rushing something in to GCC-12.

I see Andreas is already here, I'm having some trouble adding anyone else
though (I can never quite figure out Bugzilla...).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-04-07 14:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-01 23:36 [Bug target/104338] New: " palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-01 23:41 ` [Bug target/104338] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-01 23:41 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com
2022-02-01 23:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-02  8:48 ` schwab@linux-m68k.org
2022-02-08  1:08 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com
2022-04-07 14:50 ` i at rvalue dot moe
2022-04-07 14:57 ` palmer at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-04-07 18:29 ` palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-08  3:03 ` c141028 at gmail dot com
2022-04-19 17:25 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com
2022-04-19 17:48 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-08-16 20:36 ` aurelien at aurel32 dot net
2023-01-26 22:50 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-26 23:30 ` palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-12 14:15 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-20 16:44 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com
2023-04-26 16:55 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-16 17:00 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-16 17:04 ` patrick at rivosinc dot com
2023-05-16 19:37 ` aurelien at aurel32 dot net
2023-05-16 19:42 ` i at rvalue dot moe
2023-05-16 20:05 ` palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-10-05  8:47 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-104338-4-pkxnyOokAM@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).