https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #25 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #23) > ...and also, a call might be generated as the result of using > __atomic_is_lock_free (instead of __atomic_always_lock_free), so the target > may change its mind. Not good. That should have been fixed by r227878 for Bug 65913 so that for these cases no call is generated. Without a testcase showing the wrong thing happening, I still think the right thing happens here.
