On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Mon, 23.06.14 16:11, Samuli Suominen (ssuomi...@gentoo.org) wrote: > >> > Thanks, but please work with the gcc developers to solve this >> > generically for all gcc users, instead of work around this limitation in >> > every individual project independently. It's certainly time much better >> > spent. >> >> IIRC, he told me when we discussed at IRC that systemd-udevd was the >> showstopper, and rest of the 'core' system >> built fine. > > Sure. Again. It's sounds like time much better spend if you solve this > atomic ops problems for all users of it (and believe me there are a > number, especially outside of the 'core' system. PulseAudio for example > being one which hwoever has ugly fallbacks to libatomic_ops, which are > much slower and uglier, and pull in a dep). >
I just want to point out that the GCC manual labels the __sync_* functions as being "legacy" functions, which would imply that a more modern alternative exists. Are they referring to atomic variables in C11, or something else? _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel