This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [i386, patch, RFC] HLE support in GCC
- From: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>, "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>, Kirill Yukhin <kirill dot yukhin at gmail dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 21:47:11 +0200
- Subject: Re: [i386, patch, RFC] HLE support in GCC
- References: <CAFULd4aH-4LVgNVYB4o=ZfvryKdP1mZHmWeKAcHSGgrAGHJFJA@mail.gmail.com>
> In this case, can we reverse this sentence and just emit "lock
> xacquire" for MEMMODEL_ACQUIRE and "lock xrelease" for
> MEMMODEL_RELEASE ? Do we need separate HLE_* defines or can we somehow
> recycle existing C++11 memmodel defines?
No you absolutely can't. Transactions are quite different from a normal
lock. There can be good reasons to have locks that never speculates
(e.g. if they do some operation that always aborts)
email@example.com -- Speaking for myself only.