On 08/28/2017 06:05 AM, Alexander Monakov wrote: > Ping (for this and patch 3/3 in the thread). > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2017, Alexander Monakov wrote: > >> Similar to mem_thread_fence issue from the patch 1/3, RTL representation of >> __atomic_signal_fence must be a compiler barrier. We have just one backend >> offering this pattern, and it does not place a compiler barrier. >> >> It does not appear useful to expand signal_fence to some kind of hardware >> instruction, its documentation is wrong/outdated, and we are using it >> incorrectly anyway. So just remove the whole thing and simply emit a >> compiler >> memory barrier in the optabs.c handler. >> >> * config/s390/s390.md (mem_signal_fence): Remove. >> * doc/md.texi (mem_signal_fence): Remove. >> * optabs.c (expand_mem_signal_fence): Remove uses of >> mem_signal_fence. >> Update comments. >> * target-insns.def (mem_signal_fence): Remove. This is OK.
What's the point of the delete_insns_since calls in patch #3? jeff
