public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "tanzhangxi at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/50065] -Os, -O2, -O3 optimization breaks LD/ST ordering on 32-bit SPARC
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 04:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-50065-4-2yYyylczch@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-50065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065
--- Comment #4 from Zhangxi Tan <tanzhangxi at gmail dot com> 2011-08-14 01:30:33 UTC ---
I don't think this is an valid optimization.
There are only two memory models in SPARC32, TSO and PSO (not RMO in the 64-bit
v9). Both don't allow relaxing the read->write order, i.e. 'LD remap_barrier'
should always be executed before 'ST lock'.
This optimization violates the memory model, therefore should be prohibited.
In addition, I still(In reply to comment #2)
> > instruction 2C, clrb [%g1] corresponds to inline function 'spinlock_unlock'
> > *(volatile unsigned char*)lock = 0;
> >
> > This happens before the lock protected content 'remap_barrier++', i.e.
> >
> > 30: c6 00 a0 00 ld [ %g2 ], %g3
> > 34: 86 00 e0 01 inc %g3
> > 38: 81 c3 e0 08 retl
> > 3c: c6 20 a0 00 st %g3, [ %g2 ] ---> use the branch delay slot
> >
> > This is wrong and will cause serious lock issues under a multithreading
> > environment.
>
> On what grounds is this wrong exactly? The end of the code is equivalent to:
>
> volatile unsigned char lock;
> int remap_barrier;
>
> remap_barrier++;
> lock = 0;
>
> It is perfectly valid for an optimizing C compiler to swap the two lines.
>
> You want something like:
>
> static inline void spin_unlock(char *lock)
> {
> __asm__ __volatile__("stb %%g0, [%0]" : : "r" (lock) : "memory");
> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-14 1:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-08-12 21:49 [Bug c/50065] New: " tanzhangxi at gmail dot com
2011-08-13 4:33 ` [Bug rtl-optimization/50065] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-13 10:12 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-14 1:30 ` tanzhangxi at gmail dot com
2011-08-14 4:42 ` tanzhangxi at gmail dot com [this message]
2011-08-14 9:38 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
2011-08-14 13:00 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-14 13:11 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-14 22:43 ` tanzhangxi at gmail dot com
2011-08-15 8:52 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-08-16 7:29 ` mikpe at it dot uu.se
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-50065-4-2yYyylczch@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).