From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-379342-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 5717 invoked by alias); 10 Jan 2012 14:49:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 5700 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jan 2012 14:49:39 -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; Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:49:27 +0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/51766] [4.7 regression] sync_fetch_and_xxx atomicity
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 14:49:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-51766-4-PqcqMdBtsA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-51766-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-51766-4@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: 2012-01/txt/msg01017.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51766

--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-10 14:48:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> I understand that fixing __sync_* is a hassle.  This is why I opened a separate
> bug for libstdc++.
> 
> While __sync_* is deprecated in favor of __atomic_*, use of __sync_* for
> portability is fairly pervasive in FOSS applications that need it because of
> its implementation in GCC.  Most programmers do not know about memory models
> and do not care about memory models.  And it will take time for programmers to
> switch to __atomic_*, if they even bother to choose a memory model and don't
> introduce a bug.
> 
> The basic problem is MEMMODEL_SEQ_CST only makes a performance difference for
> POWER and developers are going to continue to use __sync_* builtins for a
> while.  This change in default behavior only hurts performance for applications
> on POWER relative to all other architectures, which sucks. :-(

Yes, I see that.  But my question is - did a developer reading the
documentation
get _correct_ code on POWER (which uses a laxer memory model than documented!)
in all cases?  Or can you construct a testcase that works fine on IA64
while surprisingly (after reading docs) does not work on POWER?  Thus, didn't
we simply fix a wrong-code bug (albeit by producing slower code)?