On 11/30/2011 10:07 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote: > PS. Reflecting upon it, I wonder if it could be a part of the gcc > libraries like libgomp or libitm are. During configuration we could > check to see if there is an existing libatomic in the system, and if > there is NOT, enable building libatomic... Maybe that would be > best? then it would "just work" for all gcc users. Or at least the > vast majority.
I think this is almost certainly best. For GNU/Linux this might as well be forever; after all, to whom are we going to defer this work? For other operating systems, at least for the next few years until there is some hope of a standardized external libatomic to which we can defer. > A bit late in the game for this release, so an easily downloadable > source file would probably have to do this time around for anyone > that happens to need it for non-lockfree atomics... Nah. No later, really, than libitm. Getting it checked in is the only way its going to get tested anyway. r~
