------- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-09 17:45 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Hmm you said in: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-11/msg00149.html > > That was really a glibc bug.
Exactly *was*. Ehi, do you think I'm stupid? Of course in the meanwhile I have checked that the problem is present in machines equipped with glibc2.3.5 and is not, on the same machines, for 4_0-branch. > And actually 4.0 and before uses the builtins for ia64, this is where the > builtins came from in the first place. Exactly. But, given the glibc bug above, masking the gcc behavior well into 2005 for some of our machines, at least, isn't possible that when we switched to builtins everywhere something got broken? Alternately, the ia64 builtins themselves can be defective, but that seems much less likely to me, because we are talking about a very consistent behavior for relatively simple usages of one single mutex and one single atomic counter. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24757