[PATCH 0/3] Improve ARM atomic performance for malloc

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 7 Oct 2014, Torvald Riegel wrote:

> What I do need though is consensus from the community that the move
> towards C11 is fine, and feedback on any patches for that.

I think moving towards C11 atomics is desirable, provided that 
architectures can still provide their own implementations of atomic 
operations in the cases where direct use of __atomic_* would not be 
expanded inline or might otherwise be problematic or suboptimal, and can 
still control what size operands atomic operations are applied to (so that 
any attempt to use atomic operations on arguments other than 32-bit, or 
64-bit on 64-bit platforms, can continue to produce obvious compile or 
link errors rather than possibly non-obvious references to libgcc).

I'd be happy with requiring GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc, which might reduce 
the need for architecture-specific code in some cases, but there may not 
yet be consensus for requiring something later than 4.6.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com