https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|14.0|14.2
--- Comment #19 from Richard
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Khem Raj changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com
--- Comment #17
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |14.0
--- Comment #16 from Wilco ---
Fixed by
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #14)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #13)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > >
> > > > > Then the compiler (and the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #14 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #13)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> >
> > > > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such
> > > >
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #13 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
>
> > > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such
> > > misunderstandings are everywhere and this has no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #11)
> > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such
> > misunderstandings are everywhere and this has no difference.
>
> Where is int128 in "the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #11 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > > > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #9)
> (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC for x86/x86_64 has been using
> > > compare
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #9 from Wilco ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8)
> (In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC for x86/x86_64 has been using
> > compare exchange for atomic load (which always does a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Xi Ruoyao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|DUPLICATE |---
Status|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
bug 70814 comment #3 explains why this should not be done. As I mentioned it
can be improved for armv8.4-a maybe using an ifunc but it cannot be done for
before that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Wilco changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-05-31
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
But it is not valid thing to do.
19 matches
Mail list logo
