From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-379209-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 14906 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2012 15:45:41 -0000
Received: (qmail 14823 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2012 15:45:38 -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; Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:45:08 +0000
From: "redi 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: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:45:00 -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: redi 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-RhcrVyrI6f@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/msg00884.txt.bz2

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

--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-01-09 15:45:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The docs of __sync_* say
> 
> This builtin is not a full barrier, but rather an @dfn{acquire barrier}.
> This means that references after the builtin cannot move to (or be
> speculated to) before the builtin, but previous memory stores may not
> be globally visible yet, and previous memory loads may not yet be
> satisfied.
> 
> But it is not exactly clear to which builtins this applies.  Thus, is
> the intended behavior actually target depedent?

It refers to __sync_lock_test_and_set only (it says "this builtin" and follows
that one)

And "This builtin is not a full barrier, but rather a release barrier." refers
to __sync_lock_release.

All the others are full barriers.  It says above them "In most cases, these
builtins are considered a full barrier." and only __sync_lock_test_and_set and
__sync_lock_release specify different barrier semantics.