[tsan] Instrument atomics

[Dmitry Vyukov]

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 04:35:33PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 09:23:30AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 12:13:42PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> >> > I've added 128-bit atomic ops:
>> >> > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=168683
>> >>
>> >> Thanks.
>> >
>> > +#if (defined(__clang__) && defined(__clang_major__) \
>> > +      && defined(__clang_minor__) && __clang__ >= 1 && __clang_major__ >= 3 \
>> > +      && __clang_minor__ >= 3) \
>> > +    || (defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) \
>> > +      && defined(__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__) && __GNUC__ >= 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 6 \
>> > +      && __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ >= 3)
>> >
>> > is wrong, one thing is that __int128 is available only on a couple of
>> > architectures (i?86/x86_64/ia64 or so), and more importantly, the above
>> > isn't true for say GCC 4.7.0, because __GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__ is then < 3.
>> > So, either you want something like
>> > #define GCC_VERSION ((__GNUC__) * 10000 + (__GNUC_MINOR__) * 100 + (__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__))
>> > and then you can test like #if GCC_VERSION >= 40603
>> > or, for the int128 case, much better just to test
>> > defined(__GNUC__) && defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__)
>> > (no idea if clang doesn't define the same macro, if it does, you could
>> > just test for presence of the sizeof macro).
>>
>> clang does not support the macro.
>> what about
>> #if defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__) || defined(__clang__)
>> ?
>
> Then for __clang__ you need to do a version check I guess (and, the same
> what I wrote applies, consider clang 4.0; don't care about that though),
> but for GCC sure, just the #ifdef __SIZEOF_INT128__ is what lots of tests do.


I've wrote:

#if defined(__SIZEOF_INT128__) \
    || (__clang_major__ * 100 + __clang_minor__ >= 302)

thanks!