http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52839
--- Comment #26 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-04-12 08:30:17 UTC --- (In reply to comment #25) > If we make an ABI switch at some point, should we move over to relying just on > atomics and the libatomic fallbacks (assuming/hoping libatomic exists by > then)? Yes, unfortunately neither an ABI switch nor libatomic is not going to happen in the short term, the priority right now is to fix this regression in 4.7.0 I hope to get time in the next few days to partially revert the acinclude.m4 changes that cause _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS to rely on 8-byte CAS, but I'd like to hear from Benjamin first. > Also, refcounting in basic_string has bugs too. Do you see other areas of > libstdc++ that could use a review of the synchronization bits? std::locale also uses atomics for refcounting.
