On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:10 PM, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Nicolas Boichat
>> wrote:
>>> From: Nicolas Boichat
>>>
>>> When compiling with LLVM 6.0, the test fails to detect that
>>> -latomic is actually req
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 2:26 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Nicolas Boichat
> wrote:
>> From: Nicolas Boichat
>>
>> When compiling with LLVM 6.0, the test fails to detect that
>> -latomic is actually required, as the atomic call is inlined.
>>
>> In the code itself (s
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> From: Nicolas Boichat
>
> When compiling with LLVM 6.0, the test fails to detect that
> -latomic is actually required, as the atomic call is inlined.
>
> In the code itself (src/util/disk_cache.c), we see this pattern:
> p_atomic_add(cache
And now I left the CHROMIUM tag, sorry ,-(
On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Nicolas Boichat wrote:
> From: Nicolas Boichat
>
> When compiling with LLVM 6.0, the test fails to detect that
> -latomic is actually required, as the atomic call is inlined.
>
> In the code itself (src/util/disk_cache.c
From: Nicolas Boichat
When compiling with LLVM 6.0, the test fails to detect that
-latomic is actually required, as the atomic call is inlined.
In the code itself (src/util/disk_cache.c), we see this pattern:
p_atomic_add(cache->size, - (uint64_t)size);
where cache->size is an uint64_t *, and re
