[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160111163544.GI2016@debian>
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:35:44 +0100
From: Markus Wichmann <nullplan@....net>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: atomic.h cleanup
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 08:50:28PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> "asm goto" is an extension that appeared in gcc 4.5 and is not supported in
> clang (I get "error: expected '(' after 'asm'" with clang 3.7). I don't know
> why you claim it works with clang.
>
That's very simple: Because I misremembered. I had tested a lot of
things against gcc and clang and thought that file had been among them.
But it wasn't.
And I didn't test it because building a cross-gcc had been hard enough,
so I didn't have the energy to try a cross-clang on that day.
So I'm sorry, but it was an honest mistake.
> Corresponding llvm bugs (no plans to add support soon):
> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9295
> https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14406
>
Really? OK, so it's either suboptimal code for everyone or
compiler-specific better code. Why can't we have nice things?
OTOH, maybe we simply shouldn't write synchronisation primitives
ourselves and instead use the ones provided by GCC (and let other
compilers suck on a salty sausage, if they don't support those
primitives).
Ciao,
Markus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
