On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10:18AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote: > The unfortunate thing is that I think these > tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is > used as expected. If this is right, then > shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar > to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use > that rather than testing for a specific CPU model?
This doesn't answer what you should do now, but I can explain the precedent: the only reason there is a predefine for 405 is so that the atomicity routines in libstdc++ know to avoid lwsync. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery
