"brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I could support the argument for ditching RHEL/CentOS 5 support, but I > expect other people might disagree. After all, we're still targeting > C89. Yeah, I still use and support CentOS 5 in some places (but maybe not git, still using ancient versions there, too). Anyways, I'm still relying on the traditional __sync_* builtins from in earlier gcc 4.x releases in some code GPL-3.0 code I maintain for older systems: https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fsync-Builtins.html Since git is GPL-2.0, it is license-compatible with all the atomic macros in the Linux kernel, as well as the kernel-derived userspace atomics (uatomic) found in liburcu <http://liburcu.org/>