From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29852 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 13:30:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 29837 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 13:30:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_CX X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:30:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8DUBDn023416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:30:11 -0500 Received: from [10.11.9.117] (vpn-9-117.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.117]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA8DU6Tk001837; Tue, 8 Nov 2011 08:30:09 -0500 Message-ID: <4EB92EDD.7080709@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 13:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110428 Fedora/3.1.10-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hans-Peter Nilsson CC: joseph@codesourcery.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, bkoz@redhat.com, rth@redhat.com Subject: Re: cxx-mem-model merge [6 of 9] - libstdc++-v3 References: <201111080505.pA8553or032507@ignucius.se.axis.com> In-Reply-To: <201111080505.pA8553or032507@ignucius.se.axis.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg01181.txt.bz2 On 11/08/2011 12:05 AM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > >> So, what DO we do if there is no basic level of atomic >> support... > I just realized I may be feeding you an inconsistent > configuration, see the atomicity stuff in > libstdc++-v3/config/cpu/cris. Is that just obsolete and unused > now or what do I need to add for that to work? > You don't need to do anything there. I think that atomicity stuff will soon be obsolete, but bkoz will have to answer that question. It looks to me like that was some gnu atomic extentions which predate atomic support in the standard. In theory, that would all be able to go away or be integrated into the gcc machine description with the modern patterns, if its not already there. I expect that for the next release we'll manage to get rid of all the little warts and uses of older mechanisms that are sprinkled around. bkoz: As relates to the existing problem, how is the legacy support invoked in compatibility-atomic-c++0x.cc? That has the old style implementation of atomic_flag with a lock, which would allow this target to compile... which is another option perhaps. or is that purely for pervious releases somehow? Andrew