On Wed, May 03, 2017 at 01:39:46PM -0700, Joe Stringer wrote:
> On 3 May 2017 at 11:05, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> > A user reported that GCC 5.x was using the atomic fallback for GCC 4.x
> > because the test
> > #elif __GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7
> > didn't include GCC 5. However, GCC 5+ ha
On 3 May 2017 at 11:05, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> A user reported that GCC 5.x was using the atomic fallback for GCC 4.x
> because the test
> #elif __GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7
> didn't include GCC 5. However, GCC 5+ has and shouldn't use
> any of the GCC-specific cases at all. I think th
A user reported that GCC 5.x was using the atomic fallback for GCC 4.x
because the test
#elif __GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 7
didn't include GCC 5. However, GCC 5+ has and shouldn't use
any of the GCC-specific cases at all. I think that this user was actually
pulling our atomics out in
