From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-365519-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 1353 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2011 12:43:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 1337 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2011 12:43:36 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 12:43:22 +0000
From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 13:00:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: rtl-optimization
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: major
X-Bugzilla-Who: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-50065-4-ZtvmtHYjZs@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-50065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-50065-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 2011-08/txt/msg01293.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50065

--- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-08-14 12:42:47 UTC ---
> The code is equivalent to
> 
> volatile unsigned char lock;
> int remap_barrier;
> 
> while (atomic_test_and_set(lock)) {
>    while (lock) {
>      ;
>    }
> }
> remap_barrier++;
> lock = 0;
> 
> Eric: could you let me know you you think the code inside function  
> spinlock_lock(&remap_lock) is a NOP?

I don't, you simply misquoted, I wrote "the end of the code".  The first part
of the spinlock implementation is correct, in particular you have the required
memory barrier in spinlock_is_locked.  The second part is not correct, as you
don't have the memory barrier in spinlock_unlock.

> Also, the arch_write_lock/unlock in the SPARC port of Linux uses a very 
> similar implementation.

No, it precisely doesn't, it has the memory barrier in spinlock_unlock.