https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
--- Comment #5 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
After more t(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> IIRC this was done because there is no atomic load/stores or a way to do
> backwards compatible.
After more thinking about it... Should not it be c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
--- Comment #4 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
I guess, in this case you would have to fall-back to lock-based implementation
for everything. But does C11 even require that atomic_load work on read-only
memory?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
--- Comment #3 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
(In reply to Ruslan Nikolaev from comment #2)
> Yes, but not having atomic_load is far less an issue. Oftentimes, algorithms
> that use 128-bit can simply use compare_and_exchange only (at least for
> x86-6
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
--- Comment #2 from Ruslan Nikolaev ---
Yes, but not having atomic_load is far less an issue. Oftentimes, algorithms
that use 128-bit can simply use compare_and_exchange only (at least for
x86-64).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84522
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|c |target
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski
