Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 15:48 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:41, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc > > > wrote: > > > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 16:58, Gabriel Ravier wrote: > > > On 11/26/21 16:48, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:41, Martin Uecker wrote: > >> Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > >>> On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc > >>

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Gabriel Ravier via Gcc
On 11/26/21 16:48, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:41, Martin Uecker wrote: Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou: T

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 15:41, Martin Uecker wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > > > > > This is a silent and dangerous inco

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:24 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > > > > This is a silent and dangerous incorrect code generation issue. > > > > > > Let's avoid this kin

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Fri, 26 Nov 2021 at 09:00, Martin Uecker via Gcc wrote: > > Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > > > This is a silent and dangerous incorrect code generation issue. > > > > Let's avoid this kind of FUD, please, builtins are low-level devices and > > people must know

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Freitag, den 26.11.2021, 09:29 +0100 schrieb Eric Botcazou: > > This is a silent and dangerous incorrect code generation issue. > > Let's avoid this kind of FUD, please, builtins are low-level devices and > people must know what they are doing and be prepared for caveats. Sorry, I do not thin

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-26 Thread Eric Botcazou
> This is a silent and dangerous incorrect code generation issue. Let's avoid this kind of FUD, please, builtins are low-level devices and people must know what they are doing and be prepared for caveats. > If these functions are not meant to be used to exising > data, then at least the documen

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-25 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Sonntag, den 07.11.2021, 10:08 +0100 schrieb Martin Uecker: > It would be great if somebody could take a look at > PR96159. > > It seems we do not do atomic accesses correctly > when the alignment is insufficient for a lockfree > access, but I think we should fall back to a > library call in t

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-08 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Montag, den 08.11.2021, 11:59 + schrieb Jonathan Wakely: > On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, 09:08 Martin Uecker wrote: > > > It would be great if somebody could take a look at > > PR96159. > > > > It seems we do not do atomic accesses correctly > > when the alignment is insufficient for a lockfree > >

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Sun, 7 Nov 2021, 09:08 Martin Uecker wrote: > > It would be great if somebody could take a look at > PR96159. > > It seems we do not do atomic accesses correctly > when the alignment is insufficient for a lockfree > access, but I think we should fall back to a > library call in this case (as cl

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-07 Thread Martin Uecker via Gcc
Am Sonntag, den 07.11.2021, 10:24 +0100 schrieb Florian Weimer: > * Martin Uecker via Gcc: > > > It would be great if somebody could take a look at > > PR96159. > > > > It seems we do not do atomic accesses correctly > > when the alignment is insufficient for a lockfree > > access, but I think w

Re: atomic_load

2021-11-07 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Martin Uecker via Gcc: > It would be great if somebody could take a look at > PR96159. > > It seems we do not do atomic accesses correctly > when the alignment is insufficient for a lockfree > access, but I think we should fall back to a > library call in this case (as clang does). > > This is