On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 10:17, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 08:44, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 14:32, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Tested x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux. I intend to push this to trunk. > >> > >> -- >8 -- > >> > >> These atomics cause linker errors on arm4t where __sync_synchronize is > >> not defined. For single-threaded targets we don't need the atomics. > >> > > > > I ran the tests on arm-eabi default config (so, armv4t) with this patch, > and here is the list of remaining UNRESOLVED tests: > > 29_atomics/atomic/compare_exchange_padding.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic/cons/value_init.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_float/value_init.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/value_init.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/compare_exchange_padding.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/generic.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/integral.cc > > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/pointer.cc > > experimental/polymorphic_allocator/construct_pair.cc > > > > all of them are due to undefined reference to __sync_synchronize > > (some also reference __atomic_compare_exchange_4, etc...) > > > > > > IIUC, this should not be the case for > experimental/polymorphic_allocator/construct_pair.cc ? > > The reference for __sync_synchronize is near the beginning of test0[123] > > from a call to __atomic_load_n line 835 of atomic_base.h > > not sure where it comes from, the .loc directive indicates line 28 of > the testcase which is the opening brace > > Doh, I removed the atomics from <memory_resource> but this is > <experimental/memory_resource>, which has a separate implementation. > > I'll make a change to <experimental/memory_resource> as well, thanks > for catching my silly mistake. > > You're welcome. So I'll shrink my patch and add dg-require-thread-fence only to the few 29_atomics tests listed above. Christophe
