This is the mail archive of the 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: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 21:43 +0100, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On 10/28/07, Robert Dewar <> wrote:
> > Bart Van Assche wrote:
> >
> > > My opinion is that, given the importance of multithreading, it should
> > > be documented in the gcc manual which optimizations can cause trouble
> > > in multithreaded software (such as (3) and (4)). It should also be
> > > documented which compiler flags must be used to disable optimizations
> > > that cause trouble for multithreaded software. Requiring that all
> > > thread-shared variables should be declared volatile is completely
> > > unacceptable.
> >
> > Why is this unacceptable .. seems much better to me than writing
> > undefined stuff.
> Requiring that all thread-shared variables must be declared volatile,
> even those protected by calls to synchronization functions, implies
> that all multithreaded code and all existing libraries have to be
> changed.

Yes, of course that is out of the question. Instead all shared
variables are treated as sharable.

This is NOT the same as volatile. Sharable variables need to
be 'de-registered' (dumped out of aliasing registers) at
function call boundaries. This is MUCH less strict than
volatile, which is at every sequence point.

If the function call is to a visible function, gcc can look in it
to see if it might fiddle a mutex, and if not, there's no need
to dump the registers. In particular, there's no synchronisation
point when a function is inlined.

IMHO the effect of this is to change the optimiser so that local
variables not addressed are preferred for lifting to registers
over globals or addressed locals.

C++ non-static members must be treated as sharable, even
if they're private, however this is not necessarily a big
deal if they're inline.

The effect seems to be that this:


can quite safely be replaced by

	r0 <- x;
	if(cond) r0++;
	x <- r0;

which is the topic of this discussion.

If this code mutually excludes other accesses to x, then it is
safe, and if it doesn't, then the programmer is responsible
for writing undefined behaviour, not the compiler.

John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net>
Felix, successor to C++:

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