[Bug target/70934] New: 16-byte atomics are unimplemented on s390x, but __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_16 is defined

2016-05-03 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70934

Bug ID: 70934
   Summary: 16-byte atomics are unimplemented on s390x, but
__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_16 is defined
   Product: gcc
   Version: 5.3.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: normal
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
  Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
  Reporter: koriakin at 0x04 dot net
  Target Milestone: ---

$ cat at128.c
typedef int ti __attribute__((mode(TI)));
ti a, b, c;
int main(void) {
#ifdef __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_16
__sync_val_compare_and_swap(, b, c);
#endif
}
$ gcc at128.c
/tmp/cc1ezNAw.o: In function `main':
at128.c:(.text+0x66): undefined reference to `__sync_val_compare_and_swap_16'
collect2: error: ld returned 1 exit status

[Bug target/68191] s390x Linux Split Stacks support

2016-02-15 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68191

--- Comment #3 from Marcin Kościelnicki  ---
All three patches (glibc, gold, gcc) have landed.  Anything left to do here?

[Bug target/68191] s390x Linux Split Stacks support

2016-01-02 Thread koriakin at 0x04 dot net 
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68191

Marcin Kościelnicki  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||koriakin at 0x04 dot net

--- Comment #2 from Marcin Kościelnicki  ---
I have submitted patches for this issue:

- gcc: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg00034.html
- gold: https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-01/msg2.html
- gold (older thread, I forgot --in-reply-to):
https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2015-12/msg00141.html
- glibc: https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-01/msg8.html