https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107676
Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-14
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Maybe this is better:
For loops that are emitted by __atomic_compare_and_exchange (and other
__atomic* builtins which emit a compare and exechange loop, e.g. ....), emit an
atomic load before the loop and if the value was not the expected value, emit a
pause instruction. This might reduce execussive cache bouncing of the memory.
Note replace .... with other builtin which also emits a compare and exchange
loop.
