On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 01:01:24PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:00PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > > Looks good to me. > > > > Thanks for the amazingly quick review! Committed revision 195370. > > Actually, there is one thing I'm worried about, -lgomp doesn't link against > -latomic, and for !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS targets supposedly __atomic_load_n > resp. __atomic_store_n might not be supported. Not sure what targets > are still !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTIN targets, but if there are any that support > libgomp, either we should use normal loads/stores for those (on the > assumption that targets without sync builtins supposedly don't have very > relaxed consistency model), or would need to take the lock always for > !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS and use normal loads/stores.
Seems for loads/stores <= wordsize we just assume they are atomic and expand it as normal load or store (with optional barriers if target has any). So supposedly it can work as is. Jakub