[Bug target/33413] New: Please provide __sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM using swap insn

[spam_from_gcc_bugzilla at chezphil dot org]

For most ARM architecture variants, the only atomic operation is swap.  The
semantics of the SWP instruction are what gcc calls __sync_lock_test_and_set (a
rather odd name since the set is unconditional).  Would it be possible to add a
__sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM that generates a SWP instruction?

It would be useful to also provide a predefined macro that can be tested to
determine whether the builtin is implemented.  Typically, code that wants to do
architecture-independent atomic operations will want to do something like:

#if have atomic add etc
... atomic operations using those builtins
#elsif have atomic swap
... atomic operations using swap
#else
... atomic operations using pthreads, or #error
#end

I understand that __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_n can be tested for the
first #if above (on sufficiently new compilers), on the basis that an
architecture that provides compare-and-swap can use it to synthesize all of the
other builtin atomic operations.  However, swap is not sufficient to implement
the other builtins without some additional constraints, e.g. a sentinel value,
and assumptions about the threading model.

For discussions please see:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.help/21113

Thanks,  Phil.


-- 
   Summary: Please provide __sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM
using swap insn
   Product: gcc
   Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
  Severity: enhancement
  Priority: P3
 Component: target
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: spam_from_gcc_bugzilla at chezphil dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33413

[Bug target/33413] Please provide __sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM using swap insn

[spam_from_gcc_bugzilla at chezphil dot org]

--- Comment #2 from spam_from_gcc_bugzilla at chezphil dot org  2010-04-05 
14:10 ---
Hi Richard,

This is obviously less of an issue than it was in 2007.

I think there are enough pre-ARMv6 systems still deployed that they cannot be
ignored, though.  For example, I believe that the Android native development
kit assumes that the hardware is >= ARMv5.

Currently, portable code need to do something like:

#if v6 or newer
...use gcc builtins, which generate ldx/stx...
#else
...use asm statements that generate swp...
#endif

It would be a bit less clunky if gcc builtins could be used in both cases. 
Personally, I use asm sufficiently rarely that it takes me a while to work out
the syntax each time (both the actual assembler syntax and the gcc asm
statement syntax).  The builtins are much easier to use.


Regards,  Phil.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=33413