From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10857 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2009 18:27:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 10822 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Aug 2009 18:27:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-vw0-f178.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f178.google.com) (209.85.212.178) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:27:05 +0000 Received: by vws8 with SMTP id 8so202107vws.14 for ; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:27:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.74.148 with SMTP id u20mr414758vcj.41.1250101622669; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:27:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <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> <238A96A773B3934685A7269CC8A8D042577A01E754@GVW0436EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:27:00 -0000 Message-ID: <84fc9c000908121127o6588fe52u581fc62bfb8cba9e@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Java: add flag_use_atomic_builtins From: Richard Guenther To: "Boehm, Hans" Cc: Andrew Haley , Paolo Bonzini , "Joseph S. Myers" , "java-patches@gcc.gnu.org" , Gcc Patch List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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/msg00078.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Boehm, Hans wrote: > [Partially replying to myself] >> From: =A0Boehm, Hans >> >> At the risk of asking a stupid question, shouldn't all the >> code inside gcc gradually migrate towards using the C++0x >> (and probably C1x) atomics, which seem to be generally >> supported by gcc 4.4? >> >> There are known issues with __sync (no atomic loads and >> stores, underspecified ordering), which is why there wasn't >> much of an effort topush the __sync interface into C++0x. >> >> Hans >> > OK. =A0That was largely a stupid question, since we're talking about the = compiler implementation of those primitives, which presumably are shared wi= th the atomic implementation? I'm not aware of a proper implementation of the C++1x atomics or the memory model for gcc. Richard.