On Feb 15 2018, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:18:39 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote:
>> On 02/12/2018 03:23 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>
+/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
+ others do n
On Feb 15 2018, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:18:39 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote:
>> On 02/12/2018 03:23 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>>>
+/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
+ others do n
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018 15:18:39 PST (-0800), Jim Wilson wrote:
On 02/12/2018 03:23 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
+ others do not. So link libatomic by default, as needed. */
+#undef
On Feb 12 2018, Jim Wilson wrote:
> I don't know the history here, but I do know that the most common atomic
> related bug report we get is for people using pthread, so we were probably
> thinking about that when this was written. But handling the two cases
> differently does look like a bug. I
On 02/12/2018 03:23 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
+/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
+ others do not. So link libatomic by default, as needed. */
+#undef LIB_SPEC
+#ifdef LD_AS_NEEDED_OPTION
+#define LIB_SPEC GNU_US
On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
>
> > +/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
> > + others do not. So link libatomic by default, as needed. */
> > +#undef LIB_SPEC
> > +#ifdef LD_AS_NEEDED_OPTION
> > +#def
On Feb 06 2017, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> +/* Because RISC-V only has word-sized atomics, it requries libatomic where
> + others do not. So link libatomic by default, as needed. */
> +#undef LIB_SPEC
> +#ifdef LD_AS_NEEDED_OPTION
> +#define LIB_SPEC GNU_USER_TARGET_LIB_SPEC \
> + " %{pthread:"
I think this got dropped because it was over the size limit for this
mailing list. I've attached a gzip'd version of the patch instead.
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to this patch. Here's patch #2 from of v3
> submission which I seem
Sorry, I'm not sure what happened to this patch. Here's patch #2 from of v3
submission which I seem to have dropped.
