RE: [PATCH] libatomic: Fix SEQ_CST 128-bit atomic load [PR108891]

2023-03-17 Thread Kyrylo Tkachov via Gcc-patches
> -Original Message- > From: Wilco Dijkstra > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2023 6:22 PM > To: GCC Patches > Cc: Richard Sandiford ; Kyrylo Tkachov > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] libatomic: Fix SEQ_CST 128-bit atomic load [PR108891] > > ping > > > From

Re: [PATCH] libatomic: Fix SEQ_CST 128-bit atomic load [PR108891]

2023-03-16 Thread Wilco Dijkstra via Gcc-patches
ping From: Wilco Dijkstra Sent: 23 February 2023 15:11 To: GCC Patches Cc: Richard Sandiford ; Kyrylo Tkachov Subject: [PATCH] libatomic: Fix SEQ_CST 128-bit atomic load [PR108891]   The LSE2 ifunc for 16-byte atomic load requires a barrier before the LDP - without it, it effectively has

[PATCH] libatomic: Fix SEQ_CST 128-bit atomic load [PR108891]

2023-02-23 Thread Wilco Dijkstra via Gcc-patches
The LSE2 ifunc for 16-byte atomic load requires a barrier before the LDP - without it, it effectively has Load-AcquirePC semantics similar to LDAPR, which is less restrictive than what __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST requires. This patch fixes this and adds comments to make it easier to see which sequence is us