Hi, Just a quick clarification. Looking back at the description in https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc-patches/2017-01/msg02344.html It sounds like CAS based implementation is a problem for volatile atomic loads. Can any one please elaborate what is the issue with volatile atomic loads. I am trying to do risk analysis in our code. Thanks Satish On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Satish Vasudeva < satish.vasudeva@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's a great answer. Thank you > > Have a nice weekend. > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 9:16 AM Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Fri, 2022-02-25 at 09:05 -0800, Satish Vasudeva wrote: >> > Thanks for a quick action on this. >> > >> > I see that a patch has been posted. >> > >> > I am new to this, can you please clarify what is the build option for >> > new and older Intel CPUs? >> >> You don't need to add any build option if you'll use the posted patch. >> The patch uses ifunc (https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/GNU_IFUNC) >> feature. It means libatomic will automatically select a best variant of >> 16B atomic load applicable for the CPU when it's loaded at runtime. >> >> > > Opened as https://gcc.gnu.org/PR104688 >> -- >> Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University >> >
