luc14n0/glib
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/glib.git synced 2024-09-20 01:06:15 +02:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Clean up atomic cruft

Browse Source 
Nothing is using these defines anymore, and the messages
are misleading. Based on a patch by Kean Johnston.

https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=660013
This commit is contained in:
Matthias Clasen 2011-09-29 23:13:49 -04:00
parent cde8cf16fa
commit e6c76d9fd4
2 changed files with 2 additions and 120 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

32
config.h.win32.in
View File

@ -61,38 +61,6 @@
/* The size of system_thread, as computed by sizeof. */
#define GLIB_SIZEOF_SYSTEM_THREAD 4
/* alpha atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_ALPHA */
/* arm atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_ARM */
/* cris atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_CRIS */
/* crisv32 atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_CRISV32 */
/* i486 atomic implementation */
#ifndef _MSC_VER
#define G_ATOMIC_I486 1
#endif /* _MSC_VER */
/* ia64 atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_IA64 */
/* powerpc atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_POWERPC */
/* s390 atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_S390 */
/* sparcv9 atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_SPARCV9 */
/* x86_64 atomic implementation */
/* #undef G_ATOMIC_X86_64 */
/* whether GCC supports built-in atomic intrinsics */
/* #undef HAVE_GCC_BUILTINS_FOR_ATOMIC_OPERATIONS */

90
configure.ac
View File

@ -2455,100 +2455,14 @@ dnl ************************
dnl *** g_atomic_* tests ***
dnl ************************
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether to use assembler code for atomic operations])
case $host_cpu in
i386)
AC_MSG_RESULT([none])
i?86|x86_64|s390|s390x|arm*|crisv32*|etrax*)
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
i?86)
AC_MSG_RESULT([i486])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_I486, 1,
[i486 atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
sparc*)
SPARCV9_WARNING="Try to rerun configure with CFLAGS='-mcpu=v9',
when you are using a sparc with v9 instruction set (most
sparcs nowadays). This will make the code for atomic
operations much faster. The resulting code will not run
on very old sparcs though."
AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE([[
main ()
{
int tmp1, tmp2, tmp3;
__asm__ __volatile__("casx [%2], %0, %1"
: "=&r" (tmp1), "=&r" (tmp2) : "r" (&tmp3));
}]])],
AC_MSG_RESULT([sparcv9])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_SPARCV9, 1,
[sparcv9 atomic implementation]),
AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
AC_MSG_WARN([[$SPARCV9_WARNING]]))
sparc*|alpha*|powerpc*|ia64)
glib_memory_barrier_needed=yes
;;
alpha*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([alpha])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_ALPHA, 1,
[alpha atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=yes
;;
x86_64)
AC_MSG_RESULT([x86_64])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_X86_64, 1,
[x86_64 atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
powerpc*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([powerpc])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_POWERPC, 1,
[powerpc atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=yes
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether asm supports numbered local labels])
AC_TRY_COMPILE(
,[
__asm__ __volatile__ ("1: nop\n"
" bne- 1b")
],[
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(ASM_NUMERIC_LABELS, 1, [define if asm blocks can use numeric local labels])
AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
],[
AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
])
;;
ia64)
AC_MSG_RESULT([ia64])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_IA64, 1,
[ia64 atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=yes
;;
s390|s390x)
AC_MSG_RESULT([s390])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_S390, 1,
[s390 atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
arm*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([arm])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_ARM, 1,
[arm atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
crisv32*|etraxfs*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([crisv32])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_CRISV32, 1,
[crisv32 atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
cris*|etrax*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([cris])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(G_ATOMIC_CRIS, 1,
[cris atomic implementation])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=no
;;
*)
AC_MSG_RESULT([none])
glib_memory_barrier_needed=yes
;;
esac