On Mon, 12 May 2025 at 09:52, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> On 2025-04-29T21:09:17+0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > The GLIBCXX_ENABLE_BACKTRACE macro currently uses the
> > glibcxx_ac_atomic_int macro defined by the checks that this commit
> > removes from GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS. Th
Hi!
On 2025-04-29T21:09:17+0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> The GLIBCXX_ENABLE_BACKTRACE macro currently uses the
> glibcxx_ac_atomic_int macro defined by the checks that this commit
> removes from GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS. That wasn't a good check
> anyway, because libbacktrace actually depe
On Wed, Apr 30, 2025 at 2:30 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:12, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 10:11 PM Jonathan Wakely
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Currently the GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS macro checks for a variety
> >> of __atomic built-ins fo
On Wed, 30 Apr 2025 at 12:12, Tomasz Kaminski wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 10:11 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> Currently the GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS macro checks for a variety
>> of __atomic built-ins for bool, short and int. If all those checks pass,
>> then it defines _GLIBCX
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 10:11 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Currently the GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS macro checks for a variety
> of __atomic built-ins for bool, short and int. If all those checks pass,
> then it defines _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS and uses the definitions from
> config/cpu/generi
Currently the GLIBCXX_ENABLE_ATOMIC_BUILTINS macro checks for a variety
of __atomic built-ins for bool, short and int. If all those checks pass,
then it defines _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS and uses the definitions from
config/cpu/generic/atomicity_builtins/atomicity.h for the non-inline
versions of __
