Re: [GIT PULL] Add two-byte cmpxchg emulation function for v7.4

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Tuesday 2026-11-03 19:19, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> I can get gcc-17.0.0-20261102 with no further command line options
>> >> to turn `atomic_compare_exchange_strong`+uint16 into some object code
>> >> that does not contain a call to libatomic, for sh2, sh3, sh4. Haven't 
>> >> tried xtensa or the others.
>> >> Thus, is the patch really needed?
>> >
>> >Won't that need a big jump in the minimum supported compiler version?
>> 
>> 12.0.0-20210420 behaves the same. I just chose 17 because that was
>> convenient to try first.
>
>Are you also advocating ditching the single-byte cmpxchg() emulation?

There is more?

Please note, I have not looked at the code at all. The patch
description _alone_ was enough to make me ask, such conflicting
rationale it had when presented to me.

I had not planned to go on an expedition to see what gcc would
produce, and was hoping the patch author had done that initially,
to provide a good case for his patch rather than against it.