Hi Alexey, On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:53:45PM +0000, Alexey Brodkin wrote: > Sorry for this stupid question but I'm not very familiar with use-cases for > libatomic-ops so would like to get some more clarification on what's needed here. > > I know that GCC has quite a few built-ins for atomic ops and we do implement them. > I'm adding our GCC maintainer (Claudiu) in the Cc so he may jump in if needed. One part of the question here is "why do we need libatomic-ops?". The answer to that is, because libgc uses it and libgc is used by e.g. gcc, gnutls, guile, and make. Possibly, some of these could be built without libgc, but this is how they are packaged for Debian at present. Package dependencies currently say that we need libatomic-ops. The other part is "what is missing in libatomic-ops"? If you look at a more recent implementation, such as riscv, you see that it basically says "trust gcc". So I guess all you need here is an arc-specific implementation that says "gcc knows what it is doing, use its primitives". Given sufficient work, I guess libatomic-ops could be removed in favour of using the gcc built-ins directly. Not sure whether that'd fly with libgc upstream though. So no, this is not a stupid question. Thank you for asking. Helmut _______________________________________________ linux-snps-arc mailing list linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
