https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119667
Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Last reconfirmed| |2025-04-08
CC| |tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Schwinge <tschwinge at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Right, I'd noticed that, too, in context of PR119645 (GCN, nvptx: libstdc++
'checking for atomic builtins [...]... no') -- where we don't support
libbacktrace anyway.
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> presumably [...] it's only checking
> if the compiler is new enough to support __atomic_ builtins at all. But for
> libstdc++ we actually care about whether the builtins are supported
> natively, and we don't want to use them if they're relying on libatomic.
If it isn't already, it would seem good to document the rationale for that
requirement.
