From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id E02EA3857815; Fri,  4 Sep 2020 17:11:24 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E02EA3857815
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1599239484;
 bh=85zoviN9wbl2yta81qVwSUh8Zf77Bw/pNIJ4rVFEDUo=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
 b=Fi2YWcyH4by0QlUqPxo69gLFMpGNxAGhgsjyfLvP5hk7yZvhpfY/eW8VYS0Uv06sy
 rEpPcX5pYgKueHo4LQ3bPghRr61dHFt0rYahjsxbvFcs0UZXUUSTeMqElNL+Z1LwxU
 0O1SYFOLqfA3Dtihp1pzha7rVxIWx1xegLn41aNE=
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/96898] [nvptx] libatomic support
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:11:24 +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: 11.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
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: <bug-96898-4-83uwuswGbb@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-96898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-96898-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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 <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2020 17:11:25 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96898

--- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
It wouldn't be a fallback.  omp-low.c just decides if it is going to use
GOMP_atomic_{start,end} synchronization, __atomic_* or __sync_* to perform =
the
reduction.  And whether that uses the same or different lock doesn't matter,
because for one reduction omp-low.c will only use one way.=