Re[2]: [Gc] atomic_ops: bugfix for Solaris x86/amd64

Ivan Maidanski ivmai at
Tue Feb 2 22:44:54 PST 2010

Ian Wienand <ian at> wrote:
> Hi,
> Do you think this will fix the build problem at [1]?

No, my patch deals nothing with sparc.

I see the problem of [1]: If you compile for old sparc (I mean not v9) then use -D AO_NO_SPARC_V9.
If you can't replicate that problem then you are compiling on sparcv9, right? (OS means nothing here, only the compiler and CPU matter.)

> I tried building libatomic-ops on a sparc I have available through
> Debian, and can't replicate that problem.
> -i
> [1]
> 2010/2/2 Ivan Maidanski <ivmai at>:
> > Hi!
> >
> > I've done 2 changes (for Solaris, fr the code that has been adopted from the gcc's case by myself half a year ago):
> > - fixed "xchg" operand size in AO_test_and_set_full() (I intentionally don't use "b" suffix as there has been some problems with "xchgb" mnemonic in some Sun CC assembler versions - anyway "xchg %al, ..." and "xchgb %al, ..." are equivalent);
> > - commented out AO_compare_double_and_swap_double_full (+ its AO_HAVE_...) because it hasn't been tested, might be wrong, and tickles a bug in some Sun CC versions (some assertion is violated in a register allocation function in "Sun CC 5.10" with -O1 or high; on the other hand, "Sun Ceres CC 5.10" has no problems with the code); also, __PIC__ macro is never predefined by Sun CC.
> >


More information about the Gc mailing list