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 :-)
next prev 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: linkBe 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).