This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug rtl-optimization/50065] -Os, -O2, -O3 optimization breaks LD/ST ordering on 32-bit SPARC
- From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2011 10:10:47 +0000
- Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50065] -Os, -O2, -O3 optimization breaks LD/ST ordering on 32-bit SPARC
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot
| |gnu.org
Resolution| |INVALID
--- Comment #2 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-13 10:10:47 UTC ---
> instruction 2C, clrb [%g1] corresponds to inline function 'spinlock_unlock'
> *(volatile unsigned char*)lock = 0;
>
> This happens before the lock protected content 'remap_barrier++', i.e.
>
> 30: c6 00 a0 00 ld [ %g2 ], %g3
> 34: 86 00 e0 01 inc %g3
> 38: 81 c3 e0 08 retl
> 3c: c6 20 a0 00 st %g3, [ %g2 ] ---> use the branch delay slot
>
> This is wrong and will cause serious lock issues under a multithreading
> environment.
On what grounds is this wrong exactly? The end of the code is equivalent to:
volatile unsigned char lock;
int remap_barrier;
remap_barrier++;
lock = 0;
It is perfectly valid for an optimizing C compiler to swap the two lines.
You want something like:
static inline void spin_unlock(char *lock)
{
__asm__ __volatile__("stb %%g0, [%0]" : : "r" (lock) : "memory");
}