On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 at 09:35, Jonathan Wakely <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 at 07:16, Torbjorn SVENSSON > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2026-06-25 14:52, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Jun 2026 at 13:20, Torbjorn SVENSSON > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 2026-06-25 13:41, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > >>> On Mon, 22 Jun 2026 at 10:56, Torbjorn SVENSSON > > >>> <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Jonathan, > > >>>> > > >>>> Did you find any way to get this to work without atomics? > > >>> > > >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-June/721613.html should > > >>> solve this. > > >>> > > >>> Are you able to check that, or should I push it to the forge and ask > > >>> the linaro ci-bot to check it? > > >> > > >> I can give it a try. Will let you know about the outcome tomorrow. > > > > > > Great, thanks. I'll be revising the patch slightly, but it would still > > > be good to know if the general approach solves the problem. > > > > > > > I can confirm that your patch resolves the failures on arm-none-eabi that I > > targeted with my original patch. > > I can also confirm that your patch does not cause any regressions for any > > of the arm-none-eabi permutations that I test. > > Great, thanks for confirming it. > > > Thank you for fixing this a better way than mine! > > This way the functionality actually works on Cortex-M0 (and similar > targets without full atomics).
This should be fixed at r17-2047-gb12fdd95251178
