This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: basic_string atomicity


On 01/08/2012 07:50 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely<jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6 January 2012 14:34, David Edelsohn wrote:
Unfortunately the changes to __sync_fetch_and_add because of the C++11
memory model changes to GCC ALREADY HAVE CAUSED A REGRESSION that
affects libstdc++.  G++ now produces worse code, at least for
architectures that can make a distinction among the various memory
models.
We probably want to CC Andrew and Aldy here, as I can't speak for the
other libstdc++ maintainers but personally I usually try not to touch
the existing code using atomic ops unless they're broken, and even
then I prefer to ask an expert!

Andrew, Aldy, please see
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766 for the sync vs
lwsync change, and the thread starting at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-01/msg00037.html
I agree that we need to change std::string implementation for C++11
to move away from refcounting.

I also think that we need to unbreak libstdc++ on powerpc.
Hence I am leaning towards David's patch.  The real question
is whether it does harm on other architectures that are less
"fine grained" than power.
Thats the danger. the __sync routines were suppose to be seq-cst unless otherwise specified, and I believe the fetch_and_add family in particular should have always been treated as seq-cst...

We can change libstdc++ to use a less stringent memory model, but we'd have to be sure that its correct for *all* platforms... ie, that 'exchange_and_add' is really acquire/release and not seq-cst sometimes. I expect for the next release to go through everything and remove all references to the old __sync routines and replace them with __atomic calls.

Im not really familiar with the atomicity.h stuff, bkoz has been taking care of that, maybe he can chip in here on what the model expected for exchange_and_add and others really should be.

In any case, the patch shouldn't be using numbers for the memory model, they should be using the CPP predefines like
__atomic_fetch_sub(__mem, __val, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);


Andrew


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