On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Richard Henderson <r...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 11/28/2011 04:26 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >> On 11/28/2011 03:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: >>> On 11/28/2011 02:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote: >>>> Hmm, I suppose you could argue that powerpc and others ought to not >>>> generate those three extra instructions when using the return value. >>>> I'll see about fixing powerpc. >>> >>> However, we can do better by considering the value to be stored in CR0... >> >> Try this and see if it generates the sort of code you want. Untested. > > ... actually, this one. There's no reason to differentiate between strong > and weak compare-and-swap when computing boolval.
Has anyone bootstrapped and regression-tested the patch? Thanks, David
