On 10/19/2011 05:43 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> * optabs.h (direct_optab_index): Replace DOI_atomic_compare_exchange
> with DOI_atomic_compare_and_swap.
> (direct_op): Add DOI_atomic_compare_and_swap.
> * genopinit.c: Set atomic_compare_and_swap_optab.
> * expr.h (expa
On 10/19/2011 11:31 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> If, which is more likely as I think about it, thats not the case and
> the fences can look like they do in the second example (closer to the
> CAS than the copies) , then the CAS can take care of both fences,
> which would be much more preferable and
On 10/19/2011 01:55 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
On 10/19/2011 09:26 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
well, they are explicitly'compare_exchange_strong' and
'compare_exchange_weak' calls... so yes, they have 'hardcoded' one or the
other :-)
we could alternatively do 2 separate builtins, but I
On 10/19/2011 09:26 AM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> well, they are explicitly'compare_exchange_strong' and
> 'compare_exchange_weak' calls... so yes, they have 'hardcoded' one or the
> other :-)
> we could alternatively do 2 separate builtins, but I didn't see the point.
> But Im ambivalent.
grr, reposting due to thunderbird apparently sneaking some HTML in and
it being rejected... sigh.
On 10/19/2011 11:34 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
! weak = expand_expr (CALL_EXPR_ARG (exp, 3), NULL_RTX, ptr_mode,
! EXPAND_NORMAL);
!
! if (weak != const0_rtx&& weak !=
On 10/19/2011 11:16 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
In one of Andrew's previous ideas he split _ace into two separate builtins:
T __atomic_compare_exchange (T* mem, T oldval, T newval, ...);
bool __atomic_compare_exchange_success
> ! weak = expand_expr (CALL_EXPR_ARG (exp, 3), NULL_RTX, ptr_mode,
> ! EXPAND_NORMAL);
> !
> ! if (weak != const0_rtx && weak != const1_rtx)
> ! {
> ! error ("strong/weak parameter must be 0 or 1 for
> %<__atomic_compare_exchange%>");
> ! return NULL_RTX;
>
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 08:05:26AM -0700, Richard Henderson wrote:
> In one of Andrew's previous ideas he split _ace into two separate builtins:
>
> T __atomic_compare_exchange (T* mem, T oldval, T newval, ...);
> bool __atomic_compare_exchange_success (T);
>
> where the input to __ace_succes
On 10/18/2011 03:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>
>> Here's the last of the missing intrinsics. compare_exchange is
>> slightly different than the others since it doesn't map directly to
>> an rtl pattern. Its format is :
>>
>> boo
On 10/18/2011 06:25 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Its impossible to implement a weak compare and swap unless you return
both parameters in one operation.
the compare_exchange matches the atomic interface for c++, and if we
can't resolve it with a lock free instruction sequence, we have to
leave
On Oct 18, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> On 10/18/2011 06:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>>> Here's the last of the missing intrinsics. compare_exchange is
>>> slightly different than the others since it doesn't map dire
On 10/18/2011 06:07 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
Here's the last of the missing intrinsics. compare_exchange is
slightly different than the others since it doesn't map directly to
an rtl pattern. Its format is :
bool __atomic_comp
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:03:16PM -0400, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
>
> Here's the last of the missing intrinsics. compare_exchange is
> slightly different than the others since it doesn't map directly to
> an rtl pattern. Its format is :
>
> bool __atomic_compare_exchange (T* mem, T* expected, T
13 matches
Mail list logo
