Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:

> On Mon, 2014-02-17 at 18:59 +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Sat, 15 Feb 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > 
> > > glibc is a counterexample that comes to mind, although it's a smaller
> > > code base.  (It's currently not using C11 atomics, but transitioning
> > > there makes sense, and some thing I want to get to eventually.)
> > 
> > glibc is using C11 atomics (GCC builtins rather than _Atomic / 
> > <stdatomic.h>, but using __atomic_* with explicitly specified memory model 
> > rather than the older __sync_*) on AArch64, plus in certain cases on ARM 
> > and MIPS.
> 
> I think the major steps remaining is moving the other architectures
> over, and rechecking concurrent code (e.g., for the code that I have

I don't think we'll be ready to require GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc for 
another year or two, although probably we could move the requirement up 
from 4.4 to 4.6.  (And some platforms only had the C11 atomics optimized 
later than 4.7.)

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/