This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at linux-foundation dot org>, Will Deacon <will dot deacon at arm dot com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead dot org>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <Ramana dot Radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, David Howells <dhowells at redhat dot com>, "linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, "akpm at linux-foundation dot org" <akpm at linux-foundation dot org>, "mingo at kernel dot org" <mingo at kernel dot org>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2014 10:11:46 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CA+55aFyqLrj4d2TA+2aazRqXnbVsUvs0yaBL2D5rXF1G=Kiu_g at mail dot gmail dot com> <CA+55aFwsq5E8kMoEeHJJ1f2=+QAUCu_HndfPxHNz8fUBprS-jQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <1392740258 dot 18779 dot 7732 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFw7QYEMFs0BCxqRJW3Cz=tLbaku-tmN6hLXPKP9jbom7Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <1392752867 dot 18779 dot 8120 dot camel at triegel dot csb> <CA+55aFxQPxQ8WOaZL8yAqBA=Y4k2gDn4r4oepMyi0uL6XLzv3w at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140220040102 dot GM4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <CA+55aFwwscSzwTr+xRdirtTx7HzugmMY9HrDe0GBqNhn=AuNVA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140220083032 dot GN4250 at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com> <1392918846 dot 18779 dot 10204 dot camel at triegel dot csb>
- Reply-to: paulmck at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 06:54:06PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> xagsmtp4.20140220175519.1127@vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com
> X-Xagent-Gateway: vmsdvm6.vnet.ibm.com (XAGSMTP4 at VMSDVM6)
>
> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 00:30 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > Well, all the compilers currently convert consume to acquire, so you have
> > your wish there. Of course, that also means that they generate actual
> > unneeded memory-barrier instructions, which seems extremely sub-optimal
> > to me.
>
> GCC doesn't currently, but it also doesn't seem to track the
> dependencies, but that's a bug:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59448
Ah, cool!
Thanx, Paul