efriedma added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/lib/Basic/Targets/Sparc.cpp:224
+ Builder.defineMacro("__GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8");
+ }
}
----------------
ro wrote:
> efriedma wrote:
> > This probably should be refactored so the target-independent code generates
> > it based on MaxAtomicInlineWidth, instead of duplicating it for each
> > target. But I guess you don't need to do that here.
> >
> > From the other code, the `getCPUGeneration(CPU) == CG_V9` check should only
> > guard the definition of __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8?
> > This probably should be refactored so the target-independent code generates
> > it based on MaxAtomicInlineWidth, instead of duplicating it for each
> > target. But I guess you don't need to do that here.
>
> Good: one issue at a time ;-)
>
> > From the other code, the `getCPUGeneration(CPU) == CG_V9` check should only
> > guard the definition of __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_8?
>
> I don't think so: at least `gcc` defines none of the four with `-m32
> -mcpu=v8` and all with `-m32 -mcpu=v9`.
This code, the code that sets MaxAtomicInlineWidth, and the code
inSPARCISelLowering.cpp that calls setMaxAtomicSizeInBitsSupported() all need
to agree about the supported atomic operations.
I guess the current setting of MaxAtomicInlineWidth is wrong?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86621/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D86621
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
