Re: [RFC] libstdc++ atomic_flag changes

2012-01-24 Thread Benjamin Kosnik
> The issue that I'm trying to solve is that we will have at least two > targets whose test-and-set insn does not define "set" as 1, as a > variable of type "bool" would expect. In the case of Sparc we > *could* make the test-and-set implementation test for any non-zero > value, but in the case o

[RFC] libstdc++ atomic_flag changes

2012-01-24 Thread Richard Henderson
The issue that I'm trying to solve is that we will have at least two targets whose test-and-set insn does not define "set" as 1, as a variable of type "bool" would expect. In the case of Sparc we *could* make the test-and-set implementation test for any non-zero value, but in the case of m68k t