On Thu, 14 Sept 2023 at 08:44, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Wed, 13 Sept 2023 at 14:32, Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Tested x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux. I intend to push this to trunk. >> >> -- >8 -- >> >> These atomics cause linker errors on arm4t where __sync_synchronize is >> not defined. For single-threaded targets we don't need the atomics. >> > > I ran the tests on arm-eabi default config (so, armv4t) with this patch, and > here is the list of remaining UNRESOLVED tests: > 29_atomics/atomic/compare_exchange_padding.cc > 29_atomics/atomic/cons/value_init.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_float/value_init.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/value_init.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/compare_exchange_padding.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/generic.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/integral.cc > 29_atomics/atomic_ref/pointer.cc > experimental/polymorphic_allocator/construct_pair.cc > > all of them are due to undefined reference to __sync_synchronize > (some also reference __atomic_compare_exchange_4, etc...) > > > IIUC, this should not be the case for > experimental/polymorphic_allocator/construct_pair.cc ? > The reference for __sync_synchronize is near the beginning of test0[123] > from a call to __atomic_load_n line 835 of atomic_base.h > not sure where it comes from, the .loc directive indicates line 28 of the > testcase which is the opening brace
Doh, I removed the atomics from <memory_resource> but this is <experimental/memory_resource>, which has a separate implementation. I'll make a change to <experimental/memory_resource> as well, thanks for catching my silly mistake.
