If someone else wants to make them work, go for it. I've already spent too much time making it work on old platforms with outdated and increasingly rare architectures :/ The fallback isn't so terrible and making everything portable is painful.
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, David Walter wrote: > I thought there are linux kernel headers with inline assembler for that. > > They seemed to work in tests on 32 bit platforms. > > Admittedly these aren't the gcc __sync* family but would they work? > > http://www.takatan.net/lxr/source/include/asm-i386/atomic.h?v=2.4.21-47.EL > > > > On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Comment #3 on issue 301 by [email protected]: link fails for GCC > atomic functions > http://code.google.com/p/memcached/issues/detail?id=301 > > Take a look through the configure script, it's supposed to actually > test and use the atomic call, and fail back if it fails. > > The problem is that 32bit x86 doesn't have 16bit atomics, so they have > to be detected and disabled. Except some versions of GCC (the one > you have) claims to have them anyway, and it'll fail at runtime. 32bit > is stuck with the mutex, but given how much memory you're limited > to, I doubt you'd ever notice the performance drop. It just won't be > hugely faster than .11. > > I have no idea why setting march=i686 makes it work right, and I don't > have your OS to test on :/ Since that's all pretty old legacy > stuff, we might have to insist you compile with your workaround. > > I'd consider a patch to the autocrap if it doesn't degrade any of our > supported platforms. > > > >
