https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061
Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #8 from Xi Ruoyao <xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Wilco from comment #7)
> I don't see the issue you have here. GCC for x86/x86_64 has been using
> compare exchange for atomic load (which always does a write even if the
> compare fails) for many years.
No we don't, since r7-6454.
> The question is, do you believe compilers should provide users with fast and
> efficient atomics they need? Or do you want to force every application to
> implement their own version of 128-bit atomics?
But a compiler must generate correct code first. They can use the wonderful
inline assembly because they know CAS is safe in their case, but the compiler
does not know.
