From owner-freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Tue Nov 26 18:41:31 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C09041BE811 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47Mt634l37z4868 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) id A25541BE80F; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: toolchain@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A20431BE80D for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47Mt633nqlz4864 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 672741422 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id xAQIfVG2085940 for ; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id xAQIfVXc085939 for toolchain@FreeBSD.org; Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 230888] Missing 64 bit atomic functions for i386 (libatomic) Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: bin X-Bugzilla-Version: CURRENT X-Bugzilla-Keywords: feature, needs-patch, needs-qa X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Some People X-Bugzilla-Who: dim@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 18:41:31 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D230888 --- Comment #20 from Dimitry Andric --- (In reply to Jan Beich from comment #19) I have no specific plans for this particular bug, but my personal preference would be to merge llvm/clang/libc+/etc 9.0 (and later) into stable/12 and stable/11. Because in practice, clang 8.0 and earlier have generating code that will o= nly run on i586 and higher anyway, for a long time, even if you *did* pass -march=3Di486! That said, I know some people are of the opinion that stable branches should receive far less "feature updates", or even none at all, and only security = or "P1" bug fixes. Therefore, this is not really my call, but I gladly leave = it up to the community to decide. :) Note that this latter scenario (stable branches getting no feature updates) will almost certainly require either stable branches for ports in general, = or the ports collection stopping to use the base toolchains and only using the= ir own. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=