On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 10:22:00PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:19:21PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Looks good to me. > > Thanks for the amazingly quick review! Committed revision 195370.
Actually, there is one thing I'm worried about, -lgomp doesn't link against -latomic, and for !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS targets supposedly __atomic_load_n resp. __atomic_store_n might not be supported. Not sure what targets are still !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTIN targets, but if there are any that support libgomp, either we should use normal loads/stores for those (on the assumption that targets without sync builtins supposedly don't have very relaxed consistency model), or would need to take the lock always for !HAVE_SYNC_BUILTINS and use normal loads/stores. Jakub