On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 12:19, <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> wrote: > > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com> > > testfile.c: In function 'main': > testfile.c:5:11: error: incorrect number of arguments to function > '__atomic_load' > 5 | y = __atomic_load(&x, 0); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~ > testfile.c:6:7: error: argument 2 of '__atomic_store' must be a pointer type > 6 | __atomic_store(&x, y, 0); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > testfile.c:7:7: error: argument 3 of '__atomic_compare_exchange' must be a > pointer type > 7 | __atomic_compare_exchange(&x, &y, x, 0, 0, 0); > | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > And it must be linked with -latomic.
As Philippe says, this isn't right. What the configure test is checking for is "do we have 128-bit atomics which are handled inline and specifically not via libatomic". The reason we can't use libatomic is documented in the comment starting "GCC is a house divided" in include/qemu/atomic128.h. thanks -- PMM
