and thanks for the nand catch!
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:47:50PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>> Yes, you are right.
>>> I think I've done them atomically initially because of things like
>>> FUTEX_WAKE_OP. I will fix that.
>>
>> Any progress on that?
>>
>> BTW, the current
>> template<typename T> T func_nand(T v, T op) {
>> return ~v & op;
>> }
>> is wrong not just by not being atomic (similarly to others), but
>> furthermore because __sync_fetch_and_nand (and __atomic etc.) are
>> return ~(v & op);
>> instead (GCC < 4.4 did it wrongly as ~v & op; though).
>
>
> Hi,
>
> No progress for now. It's in my todo list, but I am busy with other tasks.
> It should not block you on compiler side, and I think work most of the
> time, so I will fix in near future.
