On macOS 10.14 /usr/lib/system/libcompiler_rt.dylib contains all the
__atomic_load*, etc. functions but does not include the __atomic_is_lock_free
function. The lack of this function causes the non-lockfree-atomics feature
to be set to false even though large atomic operations are actually
supported, it's just the is_lock_free() function that is missing.
This is required so that the !non-lockfree-atomics feature can be used
to XFAIL tests that require runtime library support (D88818).
Ok, I think we're getting down to the bottom of my concern now. When is !is-lockfree-runtime-function true, but non-lockfree-atomics not true?
I want to understand in what context those can't be substituted for one another.