From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31459 invoked by alias); 12 Jun 2015 09:30:06 -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 31433 invoked by uid 89); 12 Jun 2015 09:30:05 -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, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-la0-f49.google.com Received: from mail-la0-f49.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f49.google.com) (209.85.215.49) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:30:04 +0000 Received: by lagh7 with SMTP id h7so7584664lag.0; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:30:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.25.10 with SMTP id y10mr14103924lbf.61.1434101401489; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.77.68 with HTTP; Fri, 12 Jun 2015 02:30:01 -0700 (PDT) Reply-To: ramrad01@arm.com In-Reply-To: <20150612090651.GQ12728@redhat.com> References: <555F14F1.2090504@foss.arm.com> <1432313791.3077.8.camel@triegel.csb> <5576B6D5.5010209@foss.arm.com> <1434059802.15758.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20150612090651.GQ12728@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 09:38:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h From: Ramana Radhakrishnan To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Torvald Riegel , Ramana Radhakrishnan , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" , Richard Henderson , David Edelsohn , hp@axis.com, Steve Ellcey , Jim Wilson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00913.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: >>> >>> > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> I don't think we can remove _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER and >>> _GLIBCXX_WRITE_MEM_BARRIER from atomic_word.h even though they are >>> superseded by the atomics as it is published in the documentation as >>> available macros. >> >> >> I see. We should at least update the documentation of those, as the >> current one isn't a really portable specification. If we can, I'd >> deprecate them. Jonathan, what do you think? > > > Yes, I'm in favour of deprecating them. They are GCC-specific anyway, > so there is no reason to prefer them to std::atomic_ or __atomic_ > fences. I'll treat it as a follow-up. Can I get an ack for this patch though ? I could backport this as is to fix the problems on ARM / AArch64 (PR target/66200) - alternatively I'll provide header implementations of the same for the release branches. regards Ramana