[ Fixing ENOPATCH. ]

On 9/11/20 4:24 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 9/2/20 1:48 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 9/2/20 12:44 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 12:22:28PM +0200, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>> And test-case passes on x86_64 with this patch (obviously, in
>>>> combination with trigger patch above).
>>>>
>>>> Jakub, WDYT?
>>>
>>> I guess the normal answer would be use libatomic, but it isn't ported for
>>> nvptx.
>>
>> Ah, I was not aware of that one, filed
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96898 to look into that.
>>
>>> I guess at least temporarily this is ok, though I'm wondering why
>>> you need __sync_*_16 rather than __atomic_*_16, 
>>
>> That's what omp-expand.c uses in expand_omp_atomic_pipeline:
>> BUILT_IN_SYNC_VAL_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_N .
>>
> 
> I've got an updated version of this patch. It:
> - no longer supplies the __atomic_load_16, since that's now handled by
>   libatomic
> - the __sync_val_compare_and_swap now uses __atomic_compare_and_swap,
>   which also falls back on libatomic.
> 
> I'm currently retesting.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Otherwise, I'll commit on Monday.
> 
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>