On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 04:05:08PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
> is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on
> that platform. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume
> that if something is aligned to BIGGEST_ALIGNEMENT, the
On Fri, 2 Dec 2011, Mikael Pettersson wrote:
> but futexes must be 32-bit aligned (or at least not cross page
> boundaries).
Don't mix up futexes with hardware-mandated atomic alignment
(except that preferably the letter should not be more strict).
Linux futexes must be 32-bit aligned *for all ar
Hans-Peter Nilsson writes:
> BTW, on the topic, I cringe whenever I
> see futexes expressed as plain "int", they absolutely have to
> have at least natural alignment which is not always true e.g. in
> structs. People, please keep the atomic types
> target-overridable in libraries.
+1 for m
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > On 11/28/2011 08:49 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> > >> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
> > >> is due to the fact that BIG
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 08:49 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
> >> is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on
> >> that platform. I think
On 11/28/2011 08:49 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
>> is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on
>> that platform. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume
>> that if something is
On Sat, 26 Nov 2011, Richard Henderson wrote:
> The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
> is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on
> that platform. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume
> that if something is aligned to BIGGEST_ALIGNEMENT, then
> it can be conside
The m68k-linux failure for the various omp atomic tests
is due to the fact that BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT is 16 bits on
that platform. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume
that if something is aligned to BIGGEST_ALIGNEMENT, then
it can be considered "aligned".
Tested on x86_64-linux and m68k-linux cr
