From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-303172-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 26792 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2011 17:01:29 -0000
Received: (qmail 26781 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Sep 2011 17:01:27 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-qy0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-qy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:01:13 +0000
Received: by qyk10 with SMTP id 10so532301qyk.20        for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.234.140 with SMTP id kc12mr9134334qcb.0.1317402072475; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.229.33.6 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Sep 2011 10:01:12 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACUk7=VDwc8aQvA1dT22BFFGaMy=is4CEOYWq1R_-YYxO=vnTg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110701155254.GA5242@davesworkthinkpad>	<CACUk7=XU8JS+NmcCeKMWQX=WfUeJ4Yn3J+sSk_jOEjOk10EcVg@mail.gmail.com>	<20110726085910.GA6925@davesworkthinkpad>	<20110726090039.GB6925@davesworkthinkpad>	<20110726090115.GC6925@davesworkthinkpad>	<CACUk7=VDwc8aQvA1dT22BFFGaMy=is4CEOYWq1R_-YYxO=vnTg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 18:29:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAMe9rOoLm2B3O1UvJbN5X4mHt5kV1a_P0BDoU0fxakXNdbrf0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Patch 2/4] ARM 64 bit sync atomic operations [V2]
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org>
Cc: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <david.gilbert@linaro.org>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rth@redhat.com, 	joseph@codesourcery.com, patches@linaro.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-09/txt/msg02074.txt.bz2

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 9:45 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.radhakrishnan@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 26 July 2011 10:01, Dr. David Alan Gilbert <david.gilbert@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> +
>> +extern unsigned int __write(int fd, const void *buf, unsigned int count);
>
> Why are we using __write instead of write?
>
> A comment elaborating that this file should only be in the static
> libgcc and never in the dynamic libgcc would be useful, given that the
> constructor is only pulled in only if a 64 bit sync primitive is
> referred to.
>

You may want to look a look at:

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50583

ARM may have the same problem.

-- 
H.J.