https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
frankhb1989 at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||frankhb1989 at gmail dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Rawicki rafal at rawicki dot org ---
I'm sorry about my confusion of ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE and
_GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS meaning.
In the meantime I've checked, when ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE is defined as 2 and the
target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #9)
I do link with libatomic.so - does that mean, I can patch this conditional
out (and similar conditional in the exception_ptr.h) and use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
So why is this a regression? Does ARM define _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 but
ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE=1 ? That seems like a bug in those definitions.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Rafał Rawicki rafal at rawicki dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rafal at rawicki
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Rawicki rafal at rawicki dot org ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
defined (but is no longer available) and now there is defined
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|rafal at rawicki dot org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
defined (but is no longer available) and now there is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #7 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
defined
12 matches
Mail list logo