On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 1:27 PM, Dimitry Andric <dimi...@andric.com> wrote: > On 16 Aug 2018, at 00:51, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev > <llvm-...@lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:49:16PM +0200, Dimitry Andric via llvm-dev wrote: >>> This is a regression caused by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL323281: >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> r323281 | wmi | 2018-01-23 23:27:57 +0000 (Tue, 23 Jan 2018) | 12 lines >>> >>> Adjust MaxAtomicInlineWidth for i386/i486 targets. >>> >>> This is to fix the bug reported in >>> https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34347#c6. >>> Currently, all MaxAtomicInlineWidth of x86-32 targets are set to 64. >>> However, >>> i386 doesn't support any cmpxchg related instructions. i486 only supports >>> cmpxchg. >>> So in this patch MaxAtomicInlineWidth is reset as follows: >>> For i386, the MaxAtomicInlineWidth should be 0 because no cmpxchg is >>> supported. >>> For i486, the MaxAtomicInlineWidth should be 32 because it supports cmpxchg. >>> For others 32 bits x86 cpu, the MaxAtomicInlineWidth should be 64 because >>> of cmpxchg8b. >> >> This seems to be somewhat undesirable. Does *anyone* care about real >> i386 support at this point? NetBSD certainly doesn't and I think we are >> already the odd man for a number of cases like this. > > > Yes, and since this causes quite a number of regressions for us, I would > really prefer this revision to be reverted, at least in the 7.0.0 > branch. I have already reverted it locally in our FreeBSD project > branch for importing llvm/clang 7.0.0. Hans, what is your opinion about > this?
I'd prefer to see it reverted on trunk, and then merge the revert. Is there a discussion about reverting started somewhere besides this thread? It would be nice if we could get this figured out before RC2 (tomorrow, if the schedule holds..) _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
