On 11/10/2011 02:28 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> * doc/extend.texi: Document __atomic_test_and_set and __atomic_clear.
ok.
r~
On 11/10/2011 04:50 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/10/2011 04:19 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Test cross to cris-elf in progress for your second take (at
r181254 + Bernd's patch to unbreak the tree
And it works without regressions. Thanks!
brgds, H-P
excellent. Its all checked in too.
A
On 11/10/2011 04:19 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Test cross to cris-elf in progress for your second take (at
r181254 + Bernd's patch to unbreak the tree
And it works without regressions. Thanks!
brgds, H-P
excellent. Its all checked in too.
Andrew
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 19:06:26 +0100
> > From: Andrew MacLeod
> > Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:52:44 +0100
> > On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > > Justa minute
> > >
> > > Andrew
> > doh. sorry about that
>
> Test cross to cris-elf in progress for yo
> From: Andrew MacLeod
> Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:52:44 +0100
> On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > Justa minute
> >
> > Andrew
> doh. sorry about that
Test cross to cris-elf in progress for your second take (at
r181254 + Bernd's patch to unbreak the tree for
arm-linux-gnueabi an
On 11/10/2011 08:52 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> libstdc++-v3
> * include/bits/atomic_base.h (atomic_thread_fence): Call built-in.
> (atomic_signal_fence): Call built-in.
> (test_and_set, clear): Call new atomic built-ins.
>
> gcc
> * builtins.c (expand_builtin_a
On 11/10/2011 11:48 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
On 11/10/2011 11:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
What are those then?
And, obviously the cris test should be an effective target test.
Oh, those are gone, I
On 11/10/2011 11:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
What are those then?
And, obviously the cris test should be an effective target test.
Oh, those are gone, I must not have re-svn'd
Justa minute
Andrew
On 11/10/2011 08:35 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> Currently I don't issue any warnings ...
> + /* Otherwise issue the store and a warning. */
> + warning_at (loc, 0,
> + "__atomic_clear used on target with no atomic support");
> + __atomic_clear (&a, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);
The issue here is no atomic support whatsoever. The standard now
*requires* that atomic_flag be implementable in a lock free manner for
compliance. That means they must resolve to something, and not an
external library call.
In order to support atomic_flag in a lock free manner on a target,
10 matches
Mail list logo
