On Tue, 2005-11-22 at 01:53, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Like f.i. as I proposed in
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg00965.html
> maybe you could comment on that approach. Sofar the feedback was negative,
> so I didn't yet work further on it.
I fell behind on gcc-patches reading a whi
On 11/22/05, Jim Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> > I am working on a portable low-level library of atomic operations,
>
> Like the existing libatomic-ops package?
>
> > Why does __sparc_v9__ depend on the number of bits instead of the -mcpu?
> > Is this a GCC bug? I've f
Piotr Wyderski wrote:
I am working on a portable low-level library of atomic operations,
Like the existing libatomic-ops package?
Why does __sparc_v9__ depend on the number of bits instead of the -mcpu?
Is this a GCC bug? I've found an e-mail by Jakub Jelinek, which claims, that
Jakub was p
I am working on a portable low-level library of atomic operations,
so I need to detect the exact type of the target processor, which is
specified by -mcpu or -march. However, there are two problems.
On a sparc-based platform (Sun Fire 880, Solaris 2.8, 4x UltraSparc III)
this program
#if defined(_
