On November 4, 2014 7:30:18 PM CET, Andrew MacLeod <amacl...@redhat.com> wrote:
>On 11/04/2014 12:57 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 11/04/2014 06:56 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> On 11/04/2014 12:25 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>>> On 11/04/2014 05:28 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>>>> + bool
>>>>> + default_can_compare_and_swap_p (machine_mode mode, bool
>allow_libcall)
>>>>> + {
>>>>> + return can_compare_and_swap_p (mode, allow_libcall);
>>>>> + }
>>>> This is silly. I think the problem you point out can be better
>fixed by moving
>>>> the can_compare_and_swap_p prototype elsewhere.
>>>>
>>> yeah, except it uses some of the optab table stuff that is static to
>>> optabs.c... so the basic functionality remains there.
>> I said move the prototype. Of course the implementation remains
>where it is.
>>
>prototype is in optabs.h where it belongs since its defined in
>optabs.c. :-)
>
>I'm not sure why this is much different than something like the
>targhook
>for builtin_support_vector_misalignment(), other than we are calling
>the
>routine in optabs.c rather than putting the actual code in targhooks.c.
>
>from targhooks.c:
>bool
>default_builtin_support_vector_misalignment (machine_mode mode,
>const_tree type, <...>)
> {
> if (optab_handler (movmisalign_optab, mode) != CODE_FOR_nothing)
> return true;
> return false;
>}
>
>the idea is to move all the functionality that front ends need into
>well
>defined and controlled places so we can increase the separation. "can
>perform a compare_and_swap operation" is clearly a target specific
>question isn't it?
I would rather question what is so special about java that it needs to ask that
and other frontends not. Don't we have generic atomics support now?
Richard.
>Andrew
