--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16 02:08
---
Middle-end bits are done. Target maintainers need to update md files
for new patterns, but i686 and ia64 are done.
--
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-16
02:07 ---
Subject: Bug 14311
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-16 02:07:33
Modified files:
gcc/cp : ChangeLog semantics.c
Added files:
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-14
23:37 ---
Subject: Bug 14311
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-04-14 23:37:47
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog builtin-types.def builtins.
--- Additional Comments From bkoz at redhat dot com 2005-04-11 17:14
---
Subject: Re: builtins for atomic operations needed
> I'm working on atomic builtins, but this will *not* resolve the problem of
> compiling for i386 and i486+. Indeed, it could easily make it worse because
> you
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-09 08:10
---
Ah, ok, now I got it ;) Actually, you meant exactly that i386 will *never* be
exchangeable with i486+...
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14311
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-09 07:53
---
Can you expand a bit on that? I understand perfectly that we are not going to
have CAS for i386, but what's wrong with i486+?!?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14311
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-09 03:09
---
I'm working on atomic builtins, but this will *not* resolve the problem of
compiling for i386 and i486+. Indeed, it could easily make it worse because
you won't have the kind of control you did before wrt hidin
