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: Compilers and RCU readers: Once more unto the breach!

On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 05:55:10PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello!
> Following up on last year's discussion (,
>, I believe that we have a solution.  If
> I am wrong, I am sure you all will let me know, and in great detail.  ;-)
> The key simplification is to "just say no" to RCU-protected array indexes:
>, as was suggested by several people.
> This simplification means that rcu_dereference (AKA memory_order_consume)
> need only return pointers.  This in ture avoids things like (x-x),
> (x*0), and (x%1) because if "x" is a pointer, these expressions either
> return non-pointers are compilation errors.  With a very few exceptions,
> dependency chains can lead -to- non-pointers, but cannot pass -through-
> them.
> The result is that dependencies are carried only by operations for
> which the compiler cannot easily optimize the away those dependencies,
> these operations including simple assignment, integer offset (including
> indexing), dereferencing, casts, passing as a function argument, return
> values from functions and so on.  A complete list with commentary starts
> on page 28 of:

And an update is available here:

Among other things, this update addresses the points about equality
comparisons introduced by the compiler, and outlines some of the
issues head-/tail-marked alternatives face with respect to abstraction.
The updated "Restricted Dependency Chains" section starts on page 28.


							Thanx, Paul

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