On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 6:31 PM, Benjamin Kosnik <b...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Whats left >> =========== >> Functionality is pretty much complete, but there are a few minor lose >> ends still to deal with. They could be done after a merge, in the >> next stage, or required before... you tell me :-) >> >> - potentially implement -f[no]-inline-atomics (to never produce >> inline code and always call the library) and >> -f[no]-atomic-compare-swap-loop (To not fall back to a >> compare_and_swap loop to implement missing functionality) >> >> - unaligned objects have undefined behaviour at the moment. >> Behaviour could be defined and add alignment checks and a parameter >> to __atomic_is_lock_free() for alignment checking purposes. Anything >> which doesn't map to one of the properly aligned 5 sized built-ins >> gets a library call. > > >> - A bit of C++ template restructuring in the include files to remove >> the old fall back locked implementation and fully use the new >> __atomic builtins. (*in progress now*) > > Hit me off-line about this. Hopefully I can help expedite. > >> - Change external library calls for __atomic_op_fetch routines. >> (*patch submitted already*) >> >> - There are a bunch of new tests that have been developed along the >> way, but I I expect to spend the next 2 months writing more detailed >> and specific runtime and compile time tests. And of course, fixing >> any of the fall out from those tests. > > Yes. I don't see this as a blocker for the merge. > > >> The final word >> ============= >> So what is the opinion/consensus on merging the branch? It would be >> nice to get this infrastructure in place for this release so we can >> get people to start using it, and then we can work out any issues >> that arise. >> >> I'd have Aldy do the actual merge because if I do something will go >> amok for sure. I wont be around this weekend to fix any fallout, but >> I am around until Friday evening. I'm around all next week. I don't >> anticipate much problem since this is all new functionality for the >> most part, and mainline was merged with the branch a week or two ago. > > I am really expecting this branch to be merged for 4.7. The current > status is very presentable IMHO.
If you get (or already got) ack from maintainers covering the areas you touch then I am fine with merging this branch for 4.7 from a RM point of view. You do not have too much time left though, see my upcoming status report. Thanks, Richard. > -benjamin >
