From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 49534 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2015 15:03:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 49201 invoked by uid 89); 6 Oct 2015 15:03:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 3 recipients X-HELO: mail-la0-f65.google.com Received: from mail-la0-f65.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f65.google.com) (209.85.215.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:03:06 +0000 Received: by lana8 with SMTP id a8so8309442lan.1; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.163.193 with SMTP id yk1mr14664730lbb.1.1444143783023; Tue, 06 Oct 2015 08:03:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.25.165.142 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Oct 2015 08:03:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5613B0B2.6070003@foss.arm.com> References: <20151001144941.GT6184@redhat.com> <1920101.ITbu3dyhTe@polaris> <5613B0B2.6070003@foss.arm.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2015 15:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: C PATCH for c/65345 (file-scope _Atomic expansion with floats) From: Marcus Shawcroft To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: Eric Botcazou , Marek Polacek , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Joseph Myers , "clm@codesourcery.com" , "matthew.fortune@imgtec.com" , "dje.gcc@gmail.com" , Richard Henderson , Uros Bizjak , "davem@redhat.com" , "uweigand@de.ibm.com" , "Andreas.Krebbel@de.ibm.com" , Richard Earnshaw , "nickc@redhat.com" , "olegendo@gcc.gnu.org" , "kkojima@gcc.gnu.org" , Marcus Shawcroft Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 On 6 October 2015 at 12:29, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Thanks for the explanation Eric, by that explanation I do not see the need to adjust for TARGET_EXPR or mark_addressable in the backends. > > Here are the patches that I'm testing - I will apply the ARM one after testing finishes - my previous testing broke because of some other reasons. > > The AArch64 patch cleared testing - ok to apply ? > > PR c/65345 > > * config/aarch64/aarch64-builtins.c (aarch64_atomic_assign_expand_fenv): Use create_tmp_var_raw instead of create_tmp_var. OK /Marcus