On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:03:27PM +0200, Jaromír Doleček wrote: > Le dim. 10 mai 2020 à 20:25, Joerg Sonnenberger <jo...@bec.de> a écrit : > > I find it funny that you pick an example where correctly working > > atomic implementation is essential and where the only reason it is > > pulled in is a bug in GCC. > > Yet the developers made conscious choice to depend on libatomic by > explicitly requiring 128bit atomic operations, and the only platform > where this doesn't work is apparently NetBSD.
Emitting libcalls for 128bit atomics when explicitly instructed that the support is present is a bug. That's why this is an issue with GCC and not with Clang. Joerg