public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "gary at intrepid dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libgcc/60790] libatomic convenience library selects IFUNC implementation before obtaining cpu info.
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2014 15:55:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-60790-4-jCUHRcwTvo@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-60790-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60790

--- Comment #5 from Gary Funck <gary at intrepid dot com> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #2)
> It is better if you just link directly against libatomic.  We already
> require that for C11 _Atomic support in some/most cases.

As Ian notes, this issue would apply if libatomic were statically linked as
well.

In GNU UPC, we have a technical need to link in the (static) convenience
library, apart from it being "convenient" for the user: we need to substitute
our own locking routines.  I plan to submit a separate RFE on this.

Basically, we need process-level system wide locks because in the default
configuration UPC "threads" map to an operating system "process".  The current
libatomic implementation uses pthread mutexes.   We of course could build our
own libatomic types of facility, but that is a lot of work - libatomic is
well-engineered and apart from our need to have a different locking policy it
is a good fit for our application.  (detail: we had to build a
libatomic_convenience_nolock.a archive).

PS: It would be helpful to have a separate "libatomic" bug reporting category.


      parent reply	other threads:[~2014-04-09 15:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-04-09  5:19 [Bug go/60790] New: " gary at intrepid dot com
2014-04-09  5:28 ` [Bug go/60790] " gary at intrepid dot com
2014-04-09  5:38 ` [Bug libgcc/60790] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-09 13:32 ` ian at airs dot com
2014-04-09 13:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-04-09 15:55 ` gary at intrepid dot com [this message]

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-60790-4-jCUHRcwTvo@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).