On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:35 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Thinking about this again, there could be another option - keep
>> __atomic_compare_exchange_N in the IL, but under certain conditions (similar
>> to what the patch uses in fol
On Fri, 24 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > Thinking about this again, there could be another option - keep
> > __atomic_compare_exchange_N in the IL, but under certain conditions (similar
> > to what the patch uses in fold_builtin
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This PR is about 2 issues with the *atomic_compare_exchange* APIs, which
> didn't exist with __sync_*_compare_and_swap:
> 1) the APIs make the expected argument addressable, although it is very
>common it is an automatic variable that is add
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 05:23:21PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Thinking about this again, there could be another option - keep
> __atomic_compare_exchange_N in the IL, but under certain conditions (similar
> to what the patch uses in fold_builtin_atomic_compare_exchange) for these
> builtins igno
Hi!
This PR is about 2 issues with the *atomic_compare_exchange* APIs, which
didn't exist with __sync_*_compare_and_swap:
1) the APIs make the expected argument addressable, although it is very
common it is an automatic variable that is addressable only because of
these APIs
2) for the fear
