This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [tsan] Instrument atomics


On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com> wrote:
>>> Ok.  A slight problem then is that where the tsan pass sits right now, there
>>> is no easy way to find out if the builtin call will be expanded inline or
>>> not, so (similar for asan), if we instrument them in the pass, it might be
>>> instrumented twice at runtime if the builtin is expanded as a library call
>>> (once the added instrumentation for the builtin, once in the intercepted
>>> library call).  That isn't wrong, just might need slightly more resources
>>> than if we ensured we only instrument the builtin if it isn't expanded
>>> inline.
>>>
>>
>> Should inlining of those functions be disabled as if -fno-builtins is specified?
>
> Yes, it sounds reasonable. Performance characteristics under tsan
> differ significantly, so most likely we don't care.


Do we still need range access functions then?


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]