On Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:36:00 -0600, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > > Thanks, I'll put it back. I had assumed that in those cases, clang > > would just always generate inline atomics and let LLVM fix it up if > > the actual hardware doesn't support it. > I agree with your first suspicions though... this chunk of code isn't > in exactly the right spot, and so isn't checking the right thing.
I'm totally confused about this now. Always enabling atomics on Windows seems fine, if that'll only run on hardware that has atomic instructions anyway. But if we forced atomics off for anything that wasn't Linux, a BSD or Bitrig anyway, and then required the Arch version to match - really, why check for the OS at all? If we're not going to emit anything that would call into the OS ourselves, the check seems unnecessarily restrictive. If we hard-enable inline atomics for Linux and the others, we'll not emit libcalls for atomics on those at all. I really have no idea to fix this now. Could you clear up my confusion? > Jon _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
