--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-09 19:30 ---
Some additional details from testresults: the bulk of the builtin atomics
changes
went in around mid of April, the ia64 specific bits, on April, 14. All the
results that Andreas sent at the beginning of the month (for insta
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-09 17:51 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> .Alternately, the ia64 builtins
> themselves can be defective, but that seems much less likely to me, because
> we are talking about a very consistent b
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-09 17:45 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Hmm you said in:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-11/msg00149.html
>
> That was really a glibc bug.
Exactly *was*. Ehi, do you think I'm stupid? Of course in the meanwhile
I have checked t
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-09 17:35 ---
Hmm you said in:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2005-11/msg00149.html
That was really a glibc bug.
And actually 4.0 and before uses the builtins for ia64, this is where the
builtins came from in the first place.
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-11-09 17:00 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> Those tests *never* fail in 4_0-branch, which doesn't use the builtins, and
> never did in mainline before the below of mine (and a simultaneous one to
> the compiler, which emptied ia64intrin.h)
