Committed with Palmer's suggestions for the commit message, also I
plan to back port that to 11, 12 and 13 release branches :)
On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 4:27 AM Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:36:38 PST (-0800), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
> >
> > On 2/28/24 07:02, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 09:36:38 PST (-0800), Patrick O'Neill wrote:
On 2/28/24 07:02, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:57:53 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/24 05:23, Kito Cheng wrote:
atomic_compare_and_swapsi will use lr.w and sc.w to do the atomic
operation on
On 2/28/24 07:02, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:57:53 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/24 05:23, Kito Cheng wrote:
atomic_compare_and_swapsi will use lr.w and sc.w to do the atomic
operation on
RV64, however lr.w is doing sign extend to DI and compare
instru
On Wed, 28 Feb 2024 06:57:53 PST (-0800), jeffreya...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/24 05:23, Kito Cheng wrote:
atomic_compare_and_swapsi will use lr.w and sc.w to do the atomic operation on
RV64, however lr.w is doing sign extend to DI and compare instruction only have
DI mode on RV64, so the expe
On 2/28/24 05:23, Kito Cheng wrote:
atomic_compare_and_swapsi will use lr.w and sc.w to do the atomic operation on
RV64, however lr.w is doing sign extend to DI and compare instruction only have
DI mode on RV64, so the expected value should be sign extend before compare as
well, so that we can
atomic_compare_and_swapsi will use lr.w and sc.w to do the atomic operation on
RV64, however lr.w is doing sign extend to DI and compare instruction only have
DI mode on RV64, so the expected value should be sign extend before compare as
well, so that we can get right compare result.
gcc/ChangeLog
