Re: MT support in testing ?

2003-03-20 Thread Bo Lorentsen
On Thu, 2003-03-20 at 19:17, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > Those operations are atomic for any number of CPUs, so you're looking > in the wrong place. Ok, I take Your word for it :-), and I will try to look around ones again to see if I can locate the problem somewhere else. And I will then try to ex

Re: MT support in testing ?

2003-03-20 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 08:37:30PM +0100, Bo Lorentsen wrote: > On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 18:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > Huh? Is this your own installation of GCC 3.2? Our > > i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h contains the atomic operations, not a > > single-threaded version. > No, it is not, it

Re: MT support in testing ?

2003-03-17 Thread Bo Lorentsen
On Mon, 2003-03-17 at 18:32, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > Huh? Is this your own installation of GCC 3.2? Our > i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h contains the atomic operations, not a > single-threaded version. No, it is not, it is the standard (testing) debian package. I'm not an i386 asm expert but t

Re: MT support in testing ?

2003-03-17 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:55:32PM +0100, Bo Lorentsen wrote: > Hi ... > > I have been spending some time, trying to make the g++ 3.2 work in a MT > environment, and it works out quite nicely, but ... I have some problems > while using strings (other things too I belive) on a SMP machine. > > Now

MT support in testing ?

2003-03-17 Thread Bo Lorentsen
Hi ... I have been spending some time, trying to make the g++ 3.2 work in a MT environment, and it works out quite nicely, but ... I have some problems while using strings (other things too I belive) on a SMP machine. Now this all ends up in the "i386-linux/bits/atomicity.h" file, that "only" con