On 28 January 2015 at 17:41, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2015, at 8:24 AM, Alex Velenko <alex.vele...@arm.com> wrote: >> This patch fixes aarch64/atomic-op-consume.c test to expect safe "LDAXR" >> instruction to be generated when __ATOMIC_CONSUME semantics is requested. > > Did you see: > > /* Workaround for Bugzilla 59448. GCC doesn't track consume properly, so > be conservative and promote consume to acquire. */ > if (val == MEMMODEL_CONSUME) > val = MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE; > > in builtins.c? Feels like if gcc isn’t going to support it for you, then > testing for it would be, hard?
The original test was written pre 59448 and expects GCC to implement consume behaviour. The workaround for 59448 changes GCC behaviour but did not update this test case. Going forward we can either remove the test case completely, xfail the test case pending a proper solution to 59448 ? or change the test case to expect the current intended behaviour of gcc. This patch implements that latter, which seems reasonable to me. Mike do you prefer one of the other two approaches ? Cheers /Marcus
