On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 7:33 PM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/28/2011 04:26 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 03:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 02:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
Hmm, I suppose you could argue that powerpc and others ought to not
generate
On 11/29/2011 07:13 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
... actually, this one. There's no reason to differentiate between strong
and weak compare-and-swap when computing boolval.
Has anyone bootstrapped and regression-tested the patch?
Yes, I did so last night on gcc110.
r~
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Richard Henderson r...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/29/2011 07:13 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
... actually, this one. There's no reason to differentiate between strong
and weak compare-and-swap when computing boolval.
Has anyone bootstrapped and regression-tested
On 11/28/2011 04:26 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 03:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 02:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
Hmm, I suppose you could argue that powerpc and others ought to not
generate those three extra instructions when using the return value.
I'll see about
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 04:33:58PM -0800, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 04:26 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 03:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 11/28/2011 02:16 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
Hmm, I suppose you could argue that powerpc and others ought to not
generate those
