ro added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/Sparc.cpp:224
+ Builder.defineMacro("__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8");
+ }
}
----------------
efriedma wrote:
> ro wrote:
> > efriedma wrote:
> > > This probably should be refactored so the target-independent code
> > > generates it based on MaxAtomicInlineWidth, instead of duplicating it for
> > > each target. But I guess you don't need to do that here.
> > >
> > > From the other code, the `getCPUGeneration(CPU) == CG_V9` check should
> > > only guard the definition of __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8?
> > > This probably should be refactored so the target-independent code
> > > generates it based on MaxAtomicInlineWidth, instead of duplicating it for
> > > each target. But I guess you don't need to do that here.
> >
> > Good: one issue at a time ;-)
> >
> > > From the other code, the `getCPUGeneration(CPU) == CG_V9` check should
> > > only guard the definition of __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8?
> >
> > I don't think so: at least `gcc` defines none of the four with `-m32
> > -mcpu=v8` and all with `-m32 -mcpu=v9`.
> This code, the code that sets MaxAtomicInlineWidth, and the code
> inSPARCISelLowering.cpp that calls setMaxAtomicSizeInBitsSupported() all need
> to agree about the supported atomic operations.
>
> I guess the current setting of MaxAtomicInlineWidth is wrong?
I'd say so, yes: gcc -m32 inlines ops on `_Atomic long long` while `clang-11
-m32 -mcpu=v9` doesn't.
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86621/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86621
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
