On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:16:03PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> For the __sync functions it's unfortunate that the library function has
> the same 'name' as the builtin and the builtin doesn't have an alternate
> spelling. So - can't we just add __builtin__sync_... spellings and use
>
> __sync_synchronize ()
> {
> __builtin_sync_syncronize ();
> }
>
> ? (what if __builtin_sync_syncronize expands to a libcall? if it can't,
> what's the point of the library function?)
Actually, we already have a different spelling for that,
__sync_synchronize ()
should be equivalent to
__atomic_thread_fence (__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST)
though no idea what exactly it does on targets I'm not familiar with.
Jakub
