On 06/02/2011 02:52 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > On 06/02/11 14:25, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >>> + case MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST: >>> + op = sync_mem_exchange_seq_cst_optab; >>> + break; >>> + case MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE: >>> + op = sync_mem_exchange_acq_optab; >>> + break; >>> + case MEMMODEL_RELEASE: >>> + op = sync_mem_exchange_rel_optab; >>> + break; >>> + case MEMMODEL_ACQ_REL: >>> + op = sync_mem_exchange_acq_rel_optab; >>> + break; >> >> Wouldn't it be better to pass the model (as an extra CONST_INT >> operand) to the expanders? Targets where atomic instructions always act >> as full barriers could just ignore that argument, other could decide what >> to do based on the value. > > *shrug* I don't care. Whatever everyone agrees on.
Let's do that. Many of the targets will be expanding these to a somewhat longer sequence at some stage, and they'll all be 95% identical. The extra operand ought to make for less boiler-plate code. r~
