Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-12 Thread Torvald Riegel
On Fri, 2015-06-12 at 10:30 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: > >>> > >>> > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >>> I don't think we can remove _GLIBCXX_READ_

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 12/06/15 10:30 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: I don't think we can remove _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER and _GLIBCXX_WRIT

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-12 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: >>> >>> > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> I don't think we can remove _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER and >>> _GLIBCXX_WRITE_MEM_BARRIER from atomic_word.h even th

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely
On 11/06/15 23:56 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: I don't think we can remove _GLIBCXX_READ_MEM_BARRIER and _GLIBCXX_WRITE_MEM_BARRIER from atomic_word.h even though they are superseded by the atomics as it is published in the document

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-11 Thread Torvald Riegel
On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 10:50 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > On 22/05/15 17:56, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 > >> I > >> thought it would make

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-11 Thread David Edelsohn
On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 5:50 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > > > On 22/05/15 17:56, Torvald Riegel wrote: >> >> On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 >>> I >>> thought it would make

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-06-09 Thread Ramana Radhakrishnan
On 22/05/15 17:56, Torvald Riegel wrote: On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: Hi, While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 I thought it would make more sense to write it all up with atomic primitives instead of providing various fragile

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-05-22 Thread David Edelsohn
I bootstrapped this on powerpc-ibm-aix7.1.0.0 and my colleagues bootstrapped this on powerpc64-linux and powerpc64le-linux. It works and produces reasonable instruction sequences. We can iterate on the syntax, but the core concept seems to work correctly. Thanks, David

Re: [Patch libstdc++] Rewrite cpu/generic/atomic_word.h

2015-05-22 Thread Torvald Riegel
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 12:37 +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: > Hi, > > While writing atomic_word.h for the ARM backend to fix PR target/66200 > I > thought it would make more sense to write it all up with atomic > primitives instead of providing various fragile bits of inline > asssembler. Th