public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "amacleod at redhat dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/51798] [4.7 regression] libstdc++ atomicity performance regression due to __sync_fetch_and_add
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:51:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-51798-4-SOUjrGGnHP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-51798-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51798

--- Comment #6 from Andrew Macleod <amacleod at redhat dot com> 2012-01-24 16:02:03 UTC ---
Others expressed concern about a change that could potentially affect all
targets since its in libstdc++ code, especially considering this code is being
deprecated.  There are targets other than power that are also sensitive to the
new semantics, both arm and alpha will change barrier emission based on the
model used in fetch_and_add.

I suggest acq-rel simply because it produces the same barrier structure power
had in previous releases, is less intrusive, and is less likely to have an
additional unforeseen impact anywhere else (other targets will also get the
same barriers they had I believe.)  You should see the same performance you had
before wouldn't you?

Im not arguing that using just release and acquire semantics instead wouldn't
also be correct, merely that it is harder to prove the semantic change won't
have unforeseen side effects in someones code.   Its possible that relaxed mode
might be also good enough, but again, harder to prove and comes with even
greater risk. 

Anyway, just providing an option. It the libstdc++ guys that have to make the
decision :-)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-01-24 16:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-09 14:31 [Bug libstdc++/51798] New: " dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 14:36 ` [Bug libstdc++/51798] " dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 14:38 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 15:43 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-09 17:12 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-24  7:45 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2012-01-24 16:46 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-24 16:51 ` amacleod at redhat dot com [this message]
2012-01-25 14:27 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 15:39 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-25 16:09 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2012-01-25 16:17 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-26 13:52 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-26 14:38 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2012-01-26 15:50 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-26 15:53 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-26 21:50 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-26 22:08 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 10:09 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 11:37 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 13:03 ` amacleod at redhat dot com
2012-01-27 14:55 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 15:01 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 15:26 ` dje at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 20:15 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 21:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-01-27 21:08 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-09  8:46 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-09  9:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-09 20:08 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-09 23:22 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-10 18:21 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-13 21:31 ` rth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-02-17 21:03 ` bkoz at gcc dot gnu.org

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-51798-4-SOUjrGGnHP@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).