From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-200008-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 113517 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2019 18:49:30 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 113504 invoked by uid 89); 23 Aug 2019 18:49:30 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-HELO:sk:mail-vk
X-HELO: mail-vk1-f180.google.com
Received: from mail-vk1-f180.google.com (HELO mail-vk1-f180.google.com) (209.85.221.180) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:49:28 +0000
Received: by mail-vk1-f180.google.com with SMTP id b184so2626603vkh.2        for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2019 11:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=sifive.com; s=google;        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to         :cc;        bh=xYzJQECmSTIPp6zEP/cql5TC/J942GqDG9+eqzuOsp4=;        b=Ghj6bgEsaOVkdiJLLq8Q5vn1blw3/bZ0hMBYY0kSeFq9qaVHzjT7GlWlg23MahEzlj         xEqOhrFekUkacVsWA8yYGAC9jA3WikoWwRDdp2hV0kvVJH0Zsrpw7xgsPfQKw25NLdh2         jna/COjjYoNBWrSOrKIKvM6/UO8eJi5/0uRhDnsDyKhNEzthfhM7kKWt0zAABfPs3oil         epHE5jORFPFfR3Ru18uXUnDJn+Br0bRT78JqBNJq2mEcB8d0kv5KF/QtwP5knaBcj8gE         cnqjBBIll1kFZwcLHXlxe3tZKx675ODOyKuOTzxYNZhfN6rBJUbeGItXEWmeBnA2bxEf         6UtA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAFyWVaZq1zxqvPrre0630iNuk9-9O9iTBAae2eazjQ8Hcup94A@mail.gmail.com> <4B203FA6-1E0F-4DA2-B86E-D51A0105138E@googlemail.com> <CAH6eHdTe3jAUgP7WZYOtbmnubB6=V1mMVKe7cac-+gD+sZOh6w@mail.gmail.com> <1B1B7543-E830-43C6-B996-7FE51E4540E1@googlemail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908231558130.10989@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1908231558130.10989@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
From: Jim Wilson <jimw@sifive.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 18:49:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CAFyWVaYLAq2yC0A4RHtyS6kLTy6R6ut9smBca8YYS2JAu2NFRg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: gcc vs clang for non-power-2 atomic structures
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Iain Sandoe <idsandoe@googlemail.com>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>, 	GCC Development <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00202.txt.bz2

I was pointed at
    https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26462
for the LLVM discussion of this problem.

Another issue here is that we should have ABI testing for atomic.
For instance, gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/compat has no atomic testcases.
Likewise g++.dg/compat.

Jim