Re: Bug#1052144: ghc: Needs to link against libatomic on at least m68k

Hi! On Sat, 2023-10-14 at 17:33 +0300, Ilias Tsitsimpis wrote: > As a side note, I believe the attached patch is wrong, it changes the > semantics of the functions. Notice that __sync_val_compare_and_swap() > returns the initial value of the variable x, whereas > __atomic_compare_exchange() return

Re: Bug#1052144: ghc: Needs to link against libatomic on at least m68k

Hi Adrian, On Sat, Oct 14, 2023 at 11:35AM, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > Attaching an updated version of the patch which applies against the 9.4.7-1 > version of the ghc package. Would be nice if it could be included for the > next upload. Thanks for the reminder, I will include this in the

Re: Bug#1052144: ghc: Needs to link against libatomic on at least m68k

Hello! On Fri, 2023-09-22 at 09:20 +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: > The attached patch fixes the issue for me. The underlying problem is > the use of legacy atomic functions for which no 64-bit variants exist > on some architectures [1]. See also the upstream discussion here [2]. Attachi