On 11/28/2011 08:49 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote: >> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests >> is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on >> that platform. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume >> that if something is aligned to BIGGEST_ALIGNEMENT, then >> it can be considered "aligned". > > BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT means aligned enough for normal access, but > not necessarily for atomic access.
If that's true, then you'll have problems applying any of these functions without additional source-code level alignment, everywhere. > Not that OMP support is imminent or critical for cris-linux or > anything, but can we have a new macro? I'm not sure what you're suggesting that the macro actually do. r~
