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 linux-snps-arc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-snps-arc
