Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-11-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 01:23:20PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:07:36PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > The patch I've posted at > > > is intended to > > > b

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-11-07 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:07:36PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > The patch I've posted at > > is intended to > > be mainline-ready (with the hopes that other people may pick up the ObjC > >

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-11-07 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:07:36PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > The patch I've posted at > is intended to > be mainline-ready (with the hopes that other people may pick up the ObjC > and OpenMP issues, and floating-point handling for n

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-11-06 Thread Jeff Law
On 11/06/13 15:07, Joseph S. Myers wrote: The patch I've posted at is intended to be mainline-ready [ ... ] Joseph, just wanted to say thanks for picking this up and running with it. It was a tough decision to have Andrew put the work a

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-11-06 Thread Joseph S. Myers
The patch I've posted at is intended to be mainline-ready (with the hopes that other people may pick up the ObjC and OpenMP issues, and floating-point handling for non-x86 targets, once it's in mainline). If that gets in in time for 4.9

Re: Mothballing C11 atomic work for now.

2013-09-27 Thread Jeff Hammond
If C11 atomics are not going into 4.9, then comments made to reject http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016 no longer hold and I would ask that the resolution of both it and http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53769 be reconsidered. Jeff On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Andrew M