From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-256323-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 23381 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2008 15:10:56 -0000
Received: (qmail 23123 invoked by uid 48); 10 Jul 2008 15:10:14 -0000
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:10:00 -0000
Subject: [Bug target/36793]  New: x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
Message-ID: <bug-36793-6365@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
From: "jfc at mit dot edu" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg01046.txt.bz2

As I understand __sync_synchronize, the intent is to emit a memory barrier
instruction, at least on multiprocessor systems.  Currently on x86
__sync_synchronize inhibits explicit code motion across the builtin function
call but not processor reordering of memory operations across the builtin
function call.

I think mfence is the right instruction on x86-64, and this or a similar
pattern should be added to sync.md:

(define_insn "memory_barrier"
  [(unspec_volatile [(const_int 0)] UNSPEC_MFENCE)]
  "TARGET_SSE2"
  "mfence")


-- 
           Summary: x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.1
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: jfc at mit dot edu
 GCC build triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
  GCC host triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: x86_64-linux-gnu


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36793