[Bug c/38688] __sync_lock_test_and_set does not actually lock

2009-04-15 Thread jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-15 19:42 --- Er, sorry, wrong PR in the ChangeLog. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38688

[Bug c/38688] __sync_lock_test_and_set does not actually lock

2009-04-15 Thread jb at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-04-15 19:38 --- Subject: Bug 38688 Author: jb Date: Wed Apr 15 19:38:32 2009 New Revision: 146134 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=146134 Log: 2009-04-15 Janne Blomqvist PR libfortran/38688 * io

[Bug c/38688] __sync_lock_test_and_set does not actually lock

2009-01-01 Thread felix-gcc at fefe dot de
--- Comment #2 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2009-01-01 16:01 --- Sorry, I just found out that xchg has an implicit lock. Never mind about this bug. -- felix-gcc at fefe dot de changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug c/38688] __sync_lock_test_and_set does not actually lock

2009-01-01 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-01-01 16:01 --- ;; Recall that xchg implicitly sets LOCK#, so adding it again wastes space. (define_insn "sync_lock_test_and_set" [(set (match_operand:IMODE 0 "register_operand" "=") (unspec_volatile:IMODE [(matc

[Bug c/38688] __sync_lock_test_and_set does not actually lock

2009-01-01 Thread felix-gcc at fefe dot de
--- Comment #1 from felix-gcc at fefe dot de 2009-01-01 15:58 --- All I really want is a way to access lock cmpxchg and lock xadd, really :-) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38688