This is the mail archive of the
cygwin-talk
mailing list for the cygwin project.
Re: [PATCH?] Separate pthread patches, #2 take 2.
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: The Vulgar and Professionally Intoxicated Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
- Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:15:47 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH?] Separate pthread patches, #2 take 2.
- References: <4A270656.8090704@gmail.com> <4A2716AF.9070101@gmail.com> <4A2728F8.8020907@gmail.com> <20090604151053.GX23519@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A27F602.9080907@gmail.com>
- Reply-to: The Vulgar and Unprofessional Cygwin-Talk List <cygwin-talk at cygwin dot com>
Dave Korn wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jun 4 02:52, Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>>>> The attached patch implements ilockexch and ilockcmpexch, using the inline
>>>>> asm definition from __arch_compare_and_exchange_val_32_acq in
>>>>> glibc-2.10.1/sysdeps/i386/i486/bits/atomic.h, trivially expanded inline rather
>>>>> than in its original preprocessor macro form.
>>>>>
>>>>> It generates incorrect code.
>>>> This much looks like it's probably a compiler bug.
>>> Let's see whether anyone else agrees:
>>>
>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-06/msg00053.html
>> When you checked in this change, I'll create a 1.7.0-49 test release.
>
> Am off to a meeting now; won't get a chance until late tonight.
Sorry, aint gonna be tonight either. See timestamp in GMT+0100 plus blood
alcohol level for more details :-) As I mentioned earlier, this is a special
weekend for us here where I live.
cheersh,
DaveK