From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3500 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2009 18:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 3398 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Aug 2009 18:25:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from g1t0027.austin.hp.com (HELO g1t0027.austin.hp.com) (15.216.28.34) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:25:35 +0000 Received: from G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (g3w0630.americas.hpqcorp.net [16.233.58.74]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by g1t0027.austin.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFD87381F8; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:25:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from G3W0629.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.233.58.78) by G3W0630.americas.hpqcorp.net (16.233.58.74) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.375.2; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:24:05 +0000 Received: from GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.234.32.153]) by G3W0629.americas.hpqcorp.net ([16.233.58.78]) with mapi; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:24:05 +0000 From: "Boehm, Hans" To: "Boehm, Hans" , Andrew Haley , Paolo Bonzini CC: "Joseph S. Myers" , "java-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Gcc Patch List Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:25:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Java: add flag_use_atomic_builtins Message-ID: <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D042577A01E754@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> References: <4A82E93B.5010504@redhat.com> <4A82F34B.2080404@redhat.com> <4A82F47A.7060708@gnu.org> <4A82F5C0.5000300@redhat.com> <4A82F88D.7030708@redhat.com> <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D042577A01E71A@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> In-Reply-To: <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D042577A01E71A@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact java-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: java-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-q3/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 [Partially replying to myself] > From: Boehm, Hans >=20 > At the risk of asking a stupid question, shouldn't all the=20 > code inside gcc gradually migrate towards using the C++0x=20 > (and probably C1x) atomics, which seem to be generally=20 > supported by gcc 4.4? >=20 > There are known issues with __sync (no atomic loads and=20 > stores, underspecified ordering), which is why there wasn't=20 > much of an effort topush the __sync interface into C++0x. >=20 > Hans >=20 OK. That was largely a stupid question, since we're talking about the comp= iler implementation of those primitives, which presumably are shared with t= he atomic implementation? Hans