From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13798 invoked by alias); 23 May 2007 13:48:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 13779 invoked by uid 22791); 23 May 2007 13:48:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 May 2007 13:48:40 +0000 Received: from zps77.corp.google.com (zps77.corp.google.com [172.25.146.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id l4NDmZg1024471; Wed, 23 May 2007 06:48:36 -0700 Received: from smtp.corp.google.com (spacemonkey3.corp.google.com [192.168.120.116]) by zps77.corp.google.com with ESMTP id l4NDmQdX001419 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2007 06:48:26 -0700 Received: from localhost.localdomain.google.com (21.sub-75-208-123.myvzw.com [75.208.123.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.corp.google.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l4NDmMcE020573 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2007 06:48:24 -0700 To: Kenneth Zadeck Cc: bonzini@gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: another pending patch References: <4653EE58.9020801@lu.unisi.ch> <46542EA7.7050609@naturalbridge.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 13:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <46542EA7.7050609@naturalbridge.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-05/txt/msg01549.txt.bz2 Kenneth Zadeck writes: > Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > Actually, there's also > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-02/msg01798.html > > > > on which I would like more input from the experts. > > > > Paolo Paolo, that patch is OK for mainline. An appropriate followup would be something like __builtin_blockage(), although I hope we can find a better name. This would be similar to __sync_synchronize(), though different in that it would not clobber memory. Thanks. Ian