This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Future atomic operation cleanup
- From: Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf at tilera dot com>
- To: Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 12:33:33 -0400
- Subject: Re: Future atomic operation cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <53F74A93 dot 30508 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <53F74CE4 dot 5070809 at twiddle dot net> <53FF3551 dot 8020503 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1409240266 dot 6045 dot 62 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <53FF5889 dot 5080006 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1409306115 dot 6045 dot 71 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <54005FAA dot 9000802 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1409318874 dot 6045 dot 73 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <540080DF dot 6030205 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
On 8/29/2014 9:32 AM, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
On 29-08-2014 10:27, Torvald Riegel wrote:
*If* we can make 4.7 a requirement, then I'm certainly all for using
just the builtins on architectures where they are available and get
inlined.
And that is exactly what I am asking: are we willing to raise GCC requirements
for 2.21? If we will, I see no issue on rework the patch to use GCC builtins.
If we won't, I see to no point in trying to adjust this patch to use conditionally
the GCC builtins for GCC 4.7+.
It seems a little too early still, in my opinion. For example, RHEL 7 was
only officially released a couple of months ago, and RHEL 6 was gcc 4.4, so
Perhaps it's worth adding some mechanism to enable it for testing or
whatever (e.g. configure with --use-atomic-builtins) in the meanwhile.
--
Chris Metcalf, Tilera Corp.
http://www.tilera.com