Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:08:30 -0500 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm: respect both __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ macros On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 11:20:48PM -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote: > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 10:01 PM, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:57:55PM -0800, Andre McCurdy wrote: > >> 6KZ is the correct form, 6ZK is a gcc specific historical typo. > >> Respect both for the widest compatibility with clang and older > >> versions of gcc. > > > > Probably ok, but is it needed? > > As far as I know, __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ is gcc specific and clang only ever > defines __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__. Older versions of gcc only define > __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__ and newer versions of gcc define both > __ARM_ARCH_6KZ__ and __ARM_ARCH_6ZK__. > > > Ideally we would just use > > __ARM_ARCH>=N, but old gcc lacked __ARM_ARCH, thus necessitating all > > the awful cases. > > In atomic_arch.h, replacing the current ARMv6 tests with __ARM_ARCH >= > 6 would be OK (if we could rely on __ARM_ARCH). > > For pthread_arch.h, there are ARMv6 cores which lack the c13 > coprocessor thread and process ID registers so __ARM_ARCH >= 6 > wouldn't be fine grained enough. I see. That's the core issue here -- that it's needed to choose the right (or at least optimal) thread pointer access method for v6 vs v6kz. Rich
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.