Bug 33413

Summary: Please provide __sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM using swap insn
Product: gcc Reporter: sprocket <spam_from_gcc_bugzilla>
Component: targetAssignee: Not yet assigned to anyone <unassigned>
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX    
Severity: enhancement CC: gcc-bugs
Priority: P3    
Version: unknown   
Target Milestone: ---   
Host: Target: arm
Build: Known to work:
Known to fail: Last reconfirmed:

Description sprocket 2007-09-12 21:20:08 UTC
For most ARM architecture variants, the only atomic operation is swap.  The semantics of the SWP instruction are what gcc calls __sync_lock_test_and_set (a rather odd name since the set is unconditional).  Would it be possible to add a __sync_lock_test_and_set builtin for ARM that generates a SWP instruction?

It would be useful to also provide a predefined macro that can be tested to determine whether the builtin is implemented.  Typically, code that wants to do architecture-independent atomic operations will want to do something like:

#if have atomic add etc
... atomic operations using those builtins
#elsif have atomic swap
... atomic operations using swap
#else
... atomic operations using pthreads, or #error
#end

I understand that __GCC_HAVE_SYNC_COMPARE_AND_SWAP_n can be tested for the first #if above (on sufficiently new compilers), on the basis that an architecture that provides compare-and-swap can use it to synthesize all of the other builtin atomic operations.  However, swap is not sufficient to implement the other builtins without some additional constraints, e.g. a sentinel value, and assumptions about the threading model.

For discussions please see:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gcc.help/21113

Thanks,  Phil.
Comment 1 Richard Earnshaw 2010-04-05 13:53:59 UTC
SWP is deprecated in the ARM architecture.  It would be a really bad idea to get gcc to generate that by default as it will break compatibility.
Comment 2 sprocket 2010-04-05 14:10:30 UTC
Hi Richard,

This is obviously less of an issue than it was in 2007.

I think there are enough pre-ARMv6 systems still deployed that they cannot be ignored, though.  For example, I believe that the Android native development kit assumes that the hardware is >= ARMv5.

Currently, portable code need to do something like:

#if v6 or newer
...use gcc builtins, which generate ldx/stx...
#else
...use asm statements that generate swp...
#endif

It would be a bit less clunky if gcc builtins could be used in both cases.  Personally, I use asm sufficiently rarely that it takes me a while to work out the syntax each time (both the actual assembler syntax and the gcc asm statement syntax).  The builtins are much easier to use.


Regards,  Phil.