On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote: > On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:59 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote: > > > > > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller > > > code base. (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning > > > there makes sense, and some thing I want to get to eventually.) > > > > glibc is using C11 atomics (GCC builtins rather than _Atomic / > > <stdatomic.h>, but using __atomic_* with explicitly specified memory model > > rather than the older __sync_*) on AArch64, plus in certain cases on ARM > > and MIPS. > > I think the major steps remaining is moving the other architectures > over, and rechecking concurrent code (e.g., for the code that I have
I don't think we'll be ready to require GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc for another year or two, although probably we could move the requirement up from 4.4 to 4.6. (And some platforms only had the C11 atomics optimized later than 4.7.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
