Re: [cxx-mem-model] alternate fetch operations

[Andrew MacLeod <amacleod at redhat dot com>]

On 08/12/2011 07:05 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 08/11/2011 02:42 PM, Andrew MacLeod wrote:
> > The names for the previous set implies the fetch is done before the
> > operation, so the new ones simply drop the fetch and simply use the
> > operation name. I found sync_mem_op_fetch slightly less clear.
> Really?  I guess I'm pretty used to that, and it also makes it
> abundantly clear what the difference between s_m_fetch_add and
> s_m_add really is.
>
> On balance I think we're better off sticking closer to the
> original __sync_{fetch_op,op_fetch} names.
>
> Does anyone else have an opinion on this naming?
>
>
> Otherwise the patch looks ok.

Actually, I think I will change the names.  I discovered as i was 
delving deeper that the rtl sync_ patterns are set up differently as 
well. the actually builtins are more explicit, and they specify it more 
clearly...  To match them, I will change them to :

__sync_mem_fetch_and_add
__sync_mem_add_and_fetch


At some point in the future when everything is working and there are 
less pressing issues, I will attempt to consolidate everything in some 
consistent fashion.

Andrew