https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #43 from admin_public at liblfds dot org ---
> I tested CMPXCHG16B with inline assembly on an i7-1165G7 (Dell XPS 13 9305)
> and it turned out to be much slower than CMPXCHG, even slower than a pair of
> calls to `pthread_m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #40 from admin_public at liblfds dot org ---
On 03/11/2022 12:04, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> --- Comment #38 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Please see PR104688 . We got a response from Intel, where they guaranteed
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #4 from admin_public at liblfds dot org ---
I've had a look at the libatomic source code. Obviously, it's problematic to
be sure you're understanding a large code base correctly when you go to it for
the first time and you're looking
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80878
--- Comment #2 from admin_public at liblfds dot org ---
Am I right in understanding your comment to mean 128 bit CAS is no longer
supported for x86_64?
I publish a library of lock-free data structures, liblfds. It has some users,
include
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: admin_public at liblfds dot org
Target Milestone: ---
Hi.
I've been building GCC compilers, starting with 4.1.2 up till 7.1.0, on a
couple of platforms. It's hard to do, and I'm really not good
