https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124822
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
C testcase:
static inline int
foo (int *p, int m, int n)
{
int q = 0;
return __atomic_compare_exchange_n (p, &q, 42, 0, m, n);
}
int
bar (int *p)
{
return foo (p, __ATOMIC_RELAXED, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
}
I guess the fix is easy, pass_waccess::check_atomic_builtin needs to check
BUILT_IN_TSAN_ATOMIC* in addition to BUILT_IN_ATOMIC* and BUILT_IN_SYNC*, and
pass_waccess::check_call IFN_ATOMIC* calls.
But the question is if we should do it for GCC 16 and how should it interact
with
C++17 P0418R2 (if such model combinations are valid in C++ when using <atomic>,
I think the header needs to replace the invalid for __atomic* combinations with
valid ones).
