https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109933
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rory Bolt from comment #6)
> Ah... that code makes so much sense now...
>
> So my original comment about simply using a different constant was too
> simplistic; what is being attempted is to shift the constant 1 into the
> correct byte position since the flag is only a single byte but the atomic
> store is done on a word... so the shift logic will need to be rewritten for
> big endian targets. This also explains the masking of the low order address
> bits...
>
> Interesting!
That seems likely to be the culprit. Do you have time to send a patch?
We should probably also poke through the other sub-word patterns and make sure
nothing else got dropped for BE.
