On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 2:08 PM, fab10 <0xfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It would be usefull to develop in gcc an intrinsic function for the assembly
> x86 instruction xchg to implement a low level mutex.
I believe that's what atomic_exchange is lowered to on x86?
Ref https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30543#c10
> > That should not be the case, for libgcc functions that are not in RTABI.
> > They should use the ABI of the multilib they are compiled for, which may
> > be base ABI or VFP ABI depending on the options used for compiling that
> > multilib.
>
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
>> >> Except where an external ABI defines things like that, the normal
>> >> expectation for libgcc functions is that they have the same ABI as for an
>> >> o
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Yichao Yu wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Yichao Yu wrote:
>>
>>> In particular, it seems that on all the platforms with a
>>> arm*-*-gnueabihf triple I've checked (alarm
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
>> In particular, it seems that on all the platforms with a
>> arm*-*-gnueabihf triple I've checked (alarm armv7h, alarm armv6h,
>> debian armhf, fedora armv7hl) the __p
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Yichao Yu wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to ask what should be the calling convention/ABI for these
> routines on platforms with hardware floating point support (but
> somehow still want to generate a libcall for whatever reasons).
>
> In pa
ther case I think it's be nice if the document is a little more
explicit about this.
Yichao Yu
