subject:"\[Bug target\/110061\] libatomic\: 128\-bit atomics should be lock\-free on AArch64"

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-08-01 Thread sjames at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Sam James changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-08-01 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|14.3|13.4 --- Comment #21 from Wilco --- Fixed on t

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-08-01 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|14.2|14.3 --- Comment #20 from Jakub Jelinek

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-05-07 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|14.0|14.2 --- Comment #19 from Richard Bien

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-03-17 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2024-03-17 Thread raj.khem at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Khem Raj changed: What|Removed |Added CC||raj.khem at gmail dot com --- Comment #17 fr

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-12-22 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |14.0 --- Comment #16 from Wilco --- Fixed by h

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-04 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #15 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #14) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #13) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12) > > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11) > > > > > > > > Then the compiler (and the st

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #14 from Wilco --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #13) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12) > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11) > > > > > > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such > > > > mi

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #13 from Wilco --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #12) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #11) > > > > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such > > > misunderstandings are everywhere and this has no

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #12 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #11) > > Then the compiler (and the standard) is not what they consider. Such > > misunderstandings are everywhere and this has no difference. > > Where is int128 in "the stan

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #11 from Wilco --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #10) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #9) > > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8) > > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #7) > > > > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #10 from Xi Ruoyao --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #9) > (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8) > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #7) > > > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC for x86/x86_64 has been using > > > compare e

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #9 from Wilco --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #8) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #7) > > I don't see the issue you have here. GCC for x86/x86_64 has been using > > compare exchange for atomic load (which always does a writ

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-06-02 Thread xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Xi Ruoyao changed: What|Removed |Added CC||xry111 at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #8 fr

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-05-31 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|DUPLICATE |--- Status|RESOLVED

[Bug target/110061] libatomic: 128-bit atomics should be lock-free on AArch64

2023-05-31 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110061 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- bug 70814 comment #3 explains why this should not be done. As I mentioned it can be improved for armv8.4-a maybe using an ifunc but it cannot be done for before that.