From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10096 invoked by alias); 31 Jul 2012 14:58:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10088 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Jul 2012 14:58:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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, 31 Jul 2012 14:58:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6VEwT4g018090 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:58:29 -0400 Received: from [10.11.8.92] (vpn-8-92.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.8.92]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6VEwRAG022381; Tue, 31 Jul 2012 10:58:28 -0400 Message-ID: <5017F293.3080609@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 15:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Guenther CC: Richard Henderson , uweigand@de.ibm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Convert s390 to atomic optabs, v2 References: <5016C81E.5020709@redhat.com> <1343687574-3244-1-git-send-email-rth@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-07/txt/msg01575.txt.bz2 On 07/31/2012 05:09 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On > Thus, the bad news is that it's hard for the middle-end to > recover alignment of a memory access that is represented as > a builtin function call that takes addresses as parameters > (which also makes them address-taken and thus possibly aliased). > Didn't Andrew have some patches to introduce a GIMPLE_ATOMIC > eventually side-stepping this issue (maybe that used addresses, too)? > yes, but Im not sure I'm going to be able to gimple atomic in for 4.8... Im trying to make sure the C11 stuff gets in then its back to gimple atomic... you never know tho... I'm just concerned about introducing it that late in the cycle... I'll reconsider the plan in the next week or two.. maybe I can get gimple atomic in first then the C11 stuff... put on a mega-push in august... Andrew