On 10/29/2013 03:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/28/2013 02:25 AM, Frederic Riss wrote:
>>> Is there a clean way to have the compiler discard the unneeded stack slot?
>>
>> Not yet. There is a rewrite of the atomic support in gcc t
On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/28/2013 02:25 AM, Frederic Riss wrote:
>> Is there a clean way to have the compiler discard the unneeded stack slot?
>
> Not yet. There is a rewrite of the atomic support in gcc to
> move away from using builtins, which will allow
On 10/28/2013 02:25 AM, Frederic Riss wrote:
> Is there a clean way to have the compiler discard the unneeded stack slot?
Not yet. There is a rewrite of the atomic support in gcc to
move away from using builtins, which will allow two outputs
to be ssa allocacted. But this will not be complete fo
I try to convert my port to the new memory-model-aware atomic
builtins, but I'm facing some code generation issue because of the
__atomic_compare_exchange prototype (passing the comparison value by
reference). For example, for a simple wrapper around
__atomic_compare_exchange, the code at the end o
