On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:53 AM Ken Dreyer <kdreyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > In Reef and newer, all RHEL versions on all arches have > HAVE_CXX11_ATOMIC=false, so they all build with -latomic. > > Is this expected? It certainly surprises me. I built our libatomic usage some 12-14 years ago, and I don't remember if I or somebody else did the switch to CXX11 atomic, but I would have thought we were fully on that solution by now. It should be faster, supported on more architectures, etc. But perhaps there's some issue I've forgotten? -Greg > > Obviously it "works", but I thought newer compilers (like RHEL 9's > gcc-c++-8.5.0-18.el8) should result in HAVE_CXX11_ATOMIC=true. Maybe I > have that backwards, and we should expect HAVE_CXX11_ATOMIC to be > false for all newer compilers? Am I mis-understanding the purpose of > CheckCxxAtomic.cmake? > > Is HAVE_CXX11_ATOMIC better than libatomic for performance? Or something else? > > The reason I ask is that we've fixed a couple corner-case bugs (eg > s390x) here over the past few years. Reef+ can build on modern GCC > with s390x now that we've fixed these bugs, but I'm wondering if the > consequence of always setting HAVE_CXX11_ATOMIC=false now is > intentional or desirable. > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ Dev mailing list -- dev@xxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to dev-leave@xxxxxxx
