Re: ARC rebootstrap prereq (was Re: switching ARC to 64-bit time_t )

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 03:28:36PM +0100, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> 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.

The way I read the details on libatomic is that it provides functions
to implement the things a given architecture can't do with intrinsics
in gcc directly.  So on some architectures it does nothing and on others
it implements missing bits for atomic operations.

Len Sorensen

linux-snps-arc mailing list

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux