http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/compiler-rt/trunk/lib/tsan/rtl/tsan_interface_atomic.cc?view=diff&r1=169378&r2=169379&pathrev=169379
We will integrate it later. On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyu...@google.com> wrote: > Yeah, but then there will be all that additional __sync_synchronize(), > that are not needed if we use __atomic. And on the other hand, if we > have that __sync_synchronize(), then we do not need __atomic... > > On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:57 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:53:44PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:13:20PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote: >>> >> I hope I addressed all your comments in this revision. >>> >> I've fixed nand atomic operation, made atomic operations atomic again >>> >> and added visibility attribute to interface functions. >>> > >>> > Mostly, still, __sync_lock_test_and_set isn't full barrier unlike most >>> > other >>> > __sync_* builtins, so either you'd need to use __atomic_exchange_n if >>> > available (you can e.g. guard it with #ifdef __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST), or >>> > if not available also use __sync_synchronize (). >>> >>> >>> __atomic_xxx are available since gcc 4.7 and we use gcc 4.4 on some >>> bots. I do not want to clutter the code with macros too much. >> >> Well, one option would be just a single #ifdef somewhere, >> #ifndef __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST >> #define __ATOMIC_RELEASE 0 >> ... >> #define __atomic_...(...) __sync_...(...) >> ... >> #endif >> i.e. implement __atomic_* as macros using __sync_* if not available, >> then just use __atomic_* in the code everywhere. >> >> Jakub
