From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5872 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2012 23:15:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 5860 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2012 23:15:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,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, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:46 +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 qBINFjYD021152 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:15:45 -0500 Received: from anchor.twiddle.home (vpn-233-88.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.233.88]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qBINFjhe010103; Tue, 18 Dec 2012 18:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <50D0F920.8020703@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2012 23:15:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian Lance Taylor CC: Matthias Klose , Andreas Schwab , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: PATCH RFA: PR go/55201: Create libatomic convenience library References: <50D0E0F2.5090407@redhat.com> <50D0EE7E.6000702@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-12/txt/msg01157.txt.bz2 On 12/18/2012 02:52 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > Argh. But why? Wouldn't that only apply to cases where the lock was > sometimes locked by one library and sometimes locked by a different > one? Or did you really mean "... only apply to cases where the memory protected by the lock was visible to more than one library." Yes, if libgo is attempting atomic accesses to its own data structures, which themselves are not exported from libgo, then a copy of libatomic ought to work. It would probably be better for the shared libgo to depend on the shared libatomic though. That's simply more pedantically correct. r~