On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:10:18AM -0600, Joel Sherrill wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that I think these
tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
used as expected. If this is right, then
shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
that
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that I think these
tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
used as expected. If this is right, then
shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
that rather than testing for
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Joel Sherrill wrote:
The unfortunate thing is that I think these
tests are really ensuring that MASK_DLMZB is
used as expected. If this is right, then
shouldn't there be a cpp predefine similar
to __NO_LWSYNC__ for dlmzb? And the tests use
that