jfb added a comment. In D28213#1435485 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D28213#1435485>, @efriedma wrote:
> It looks like it was reverted because it was breaking i386 BSD, where > __GCC_ATOMIC_LLONG_LOCK_FREE is in fact supposed to be "1" (because cmpxchg8b > isn't always available). Do we care about cases where it *might* be available? i.e. can we say it's never available instead? We're playing with ABI here, it's not great, but at the same time we're bending over backwards for pretty old CPUs... all of that to get bad code generation... Repository: rL LLVM CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D28213/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D28213 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
