On 20 January 2017 at 06:28, Tcll wrote:
> Hi. This is the qmail-send program at sourceware.org.
> I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
> This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.
>
> :
> Sorry, no mailbox here by that name. (#5.1.1)
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > Section 3 Rationale, alternative 1: I'm wondering if the example is
> > correct. For a 4-byte-aligned type of size 3, the implementation
> > cannot simply use 4-byte hardware-backed atomics because this will
> > inevitably touch the 4th by
Status
==
The trunk is now in regression and documentation fixes mode (Stage 4)
thus as if it were a release branch. We still have the pending adoptions of
the BRIG FE and the RISC-V port.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- --
On 01/20/2017 05:41 AM, Michael Matz wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Richard Henderson wrote:
Section 3 Rationale, alternative 1: I'm wondering if the example is
correct. For a 4-byte-aligned type of size 3, the implementation
cannot simply use 4-byte hardware-backed atomics because this will
On 01/19/2017 10:23 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
* Option 3a:
-mcx16 continues to only mean that cmpxchg16b is available, and we keep
__sync builtins unchanged. This doesn't break valid uses of __sync*
(eg, if they didn't need atomic loads at all).
We change __atomic for 16-byte to not use cmpxchg1
> I'll run testing for at least x86_64, MIPS and another
> WORD_REGISTER_OPERATIONS target and try to get this committed in the next
> couple of days so it can get into everyone's testing well before release.
No issues found on SPARC.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 08:35:14AM +0100, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> >so you seem to have 64-bit ABI_V4? I wonder how well tested that is,
> >you are likely to run into more problems. Either stack_restore_tie or
> >the above code will need a tweak.
>
> thanks for your help. I would had a hard time
