https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB |
|Is/i386-ABI/-/issues
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #25 from Peter Cordes ---
(In reply to CVS Commits from comment #24)
> The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04df5e7de2f3dd652a9cddc1c9adfbdf45947ae6
>
> commit r11-2909-g04df5e7de2f3dd652a9
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #24 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:04df5e7de2f3dd652a9cddc1c9adfbdf45947ae6
commit r11-2909-g04df5e7de2f3dd652a9cddc1c9adfbdf45947ae6
Author: Jakub Jelinek
Date: T
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
H.J. Lu changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gitlab.com/x86-psAB
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill ---
This issue came up in the GCC/LLVM compatibility discussion today.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #19 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019, jason at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> Can we please fix this for GCC 10? It's an important compatibility issue, and
> becoming more important. Bumping to P1 to raise visib
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely ---
And the post has appeared now, which didn't happen last time.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Submitted, subject "Alignment requirements for _Atomic should be stated"
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #15 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> I'm subscribed as abusenet at kayari dot org and I'm pretty sure that's the
> address I used for both posts, because that's what the Google web UI does
> automatica
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I'm subscribed as abusenet at kayari dot org and I'm pretty sure that's the
address I used for both posts, because that's what the Google web UI does
automatically.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #13 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> > > Did this ever get taken to the ABI group?
> >
> > I've done
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #11)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> > Did this ever get taken to the ABI group?
>
> I've done so now.
I tried to start a discussion at the ia3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> Did this ever get taken to the ABI group?
I've done so now.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||i386-*-*
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> > We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
> > Please send a post to
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/forum
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to H.J. Lu from comment #7)
> We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
> Please send a post to
>
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ia32-abi
Did this ever get taken to the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #8 from Peter Cordes ---
BTW, all of my proposals are really ABI changes, even if struct layout stays
the same.
All code has to agree on which objects are lock-free or not, and whether they
need to check alignment before using an SSE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #7 from H.J. Lu ---
We need to first decide what we want out of i386 atomic.
Please send a post to
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/ia32-abi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #6 from Peter Cordes ---
My test-case on godbolt: https://godbolt.org/g/MmLycw. gcc8 snapshot still
only has 4B alignment
Fun fact: clang4.0 -m32 inlines lock cmpxchg8b for 8-byte atomic load/store.
This is ironic, because it *does
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ABI
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
Peter Cordes changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||peter at cordes dot ca
--- Comment #4 fro
24 matches
Mail list logo
