From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 100141 invoked by alias); 20 Mar 2015 11:28:55 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 100091 invoked by uid 48); 20 Mar 2015 11:28:51 -0000 From: "ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/62109] __gthr_i486_lock_cmp_xchg missing clobber Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2015 12:06:00 -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: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org 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: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg02098.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62109 --- Comment #9 from Kai Tietz --- (In reply to David from comment #8) > (In reply to Kai Tietz from comment #7) > The first code block in comment #6 is what is in the code now. As you can > see, it already has the #define you are describing. I don't understand what > you mean by "change it to" this, since it is already there. > > Are you suggesting we delete the entire #ifdef > __GTHREAD_I486_INLINE_LOCK_PRIMITIVES block and replace it with the single > #define? Right, this I suggest. > I would be ok with that. Using the #error (the second code block > in comment #6) seemed like a more backward-compatible way to do this, since > it would tell people what has happened and what to do to fix it rather than > (silently) assuming we know what they want to do. If a target doesn't provide the Interlocked-API, build with fail caused by it. I don't think we need to error out on such cases. (We don't try to cover win 3.14 incompatibilities, so why we should start for Windows 9X?) > But I am ok with either of these two solutions.