From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24063 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2002 16:17:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 24042 invoked by uid 61); 3 Oct 2002 16:17:27 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 09:17:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021003161727.24041.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: acnrf@dial.eunet.ch, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@arm.com, robin.farine@terminus.org From: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: rearnsha@gcc.gnu.org, acnrf@dial.eunet.ch, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, rearnsha@arm.com, robin.farine@terminus.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/3584: arm-specific atomic operations not atomic X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00108.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: arm-specific atomic operations not atomic State-Changed-From-To: feedback->closed State-Changed-By: rearnsha State-Changed-When: Thu Oct 3 09:17:26 2002 State-Changed-Why: I'm closing this because there doesn't seem to be much more that can be done other than reverting back to the generic (no thread safety) model, which is what I've just done. See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-10/msg00157.html for further details on the problem with the old code. If thread support is added to the generic model, then we can make use of that on ARM too. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=3584