[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-27 17:37:46 UTC ---
The compatibility.h header is still a complete mess with code we don't need,
can I take this bug and clean it up?

(In reply to comment #4)
> Note: I don't think we should remove support for ICC, since lately it doesn't
> come anymore with Dinkum, libstdc++-v3 is the default C++ runtime.

But the code guarded by __ICC uses Win32 API functions, so can only work on
Windows, not when ICC is used with libstdc++

With the new __atomic built-ins the file should be even simpler.

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[paolo.carlini at oracle dot com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |NEW
                 CC|                            |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
                   |                            |com
         AssignedTo|singler at kit dot edu      |unassigned at gcc dot
                   |                            |gnu.org

--- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-09-27 17:39:28 UTC ---
Definitely Jon!

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot       |redi at gcc dot gnu.org
                   |gnu.org                     |
   Target Milestone|---                         |4.8.0

--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-27 17:53:12 UTC ---
mine then

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-29 17:58:42 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Sat Sep 29 17:58:34 2012
New Revision: 191856

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=191856
Log:
    PR libstdc++/34106
    * include/parallel/compatibility.h: Remove non-GCC code.

Modified:
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/parallel/compatibility.h

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[redi at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |FIXED

--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-09-29 18:08:23 UTC ---
Non-GCC code removed, so closing as fixed.

See Bug 54754 for further changes needed to support non-x86_64 platforms.

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

------- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-01-28 17:51 -------
I don't know the details frankly, but at minimum we should be *very* careful
and make sure we do the right thing also in the special cases, eg, on i386 when
the atomic builtins are not available.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #6 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com  2010-01-28 17:47 -------
similarly, if cygwin and mingw32 implement __sync_fetch_and_add etc. then why
keep custom versions for those platforms?  (but maybe the builtins aren't
implemented on those platforms - I have no idea)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #5 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com  2010-01-28 17:46 -------
and I thought everyone had forgotten about that patch ;)

granted, ICC uses libstdc++, but doesn't it already have to support the same
atomic builtins as used elsewhere in the library?  And my patch changes
parallel mode to use those same builtins (which are designed after the Intel
intrinsics anyway, so likely to work in ICC!)


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

------- Comment #4 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2010-01-28 17:28 -------
Note: I don't think we should remove support for ICC, since lately it doesn't
come anymore with Dinkum, libstdc++-v3 is the default C++ runtime. Likewise, we
should probably keep support for mingw32 and cygwin. In short I think we should
be careful with the sort of clean up envisaged by Jon in Comment #1.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com]

------- Comment #3 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com  2009-06-22 20:48 -------
Ok, we are very far from having the parallel mode facilities correctly
uglified, but we could as well use __CHAR_BIT__...


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com  2009-06-22 20:25 -------
Created an attachment (id=18049)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=18049&action=view)
use BITS_PER_UNIT instead of hardcoded 8

additional patch to use BITS_PER_UNIT for lcas_t_bits


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #1 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com  2009-03-11 14:29 -------
Created an attachment (id=17438)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=17438&action=view)
remove support for other compilers

this patch re-implements the parallel mode's atomic operations in terms of the
GCC builtins


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106

[Bug libstdc++/34106] [parallel mode] Atomic operations compatibility layer needs cleanup

[singler at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

singler at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |singler at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |dot org                     |org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |ASSIGNED
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2007-11-15 10:11:16
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34106