[PATCH 5/5] x86: Define atomic_compare_and_exchange_{val,bool}_acq using __atomic_compare_exchange_n

[Adhemerval Zanella Netto]

On 09/09/25 10:35, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 3:02 PM Adhemerval Zanella Netto
> <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 08/09/25 09:38, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>> No functional changes.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
>>> Cc: Adhemerval Zanella Netto <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
>>> Cc: Wilco Dijkstra <Wilco.Dijkstra@arm.com>
>>> Cc: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: H.J.Lu <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
>>> Cc: Carlos O'Donell <carlos@redhat.com>
>>
>> LGTM, thanks.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> However, it looks that after [1] gets committed, these macros should
> be removed from target headers.
> 
> I will wait a couple of days for dust to settle, and I'll respin the series.
> 
> [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/2025-September/169942.html

I think it should be fine, I working on top of the Wilco patches to cleanup
even more internal atomic builtins and I think both patchsets do not 
interfere with each other.