From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>,
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [libstdc++/65033] Give alignment info to libatomic
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 09:45:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150407094458.GA9755@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.02.1504052052110.29977@arjuna.pair.com>
On 05/04/15 21:07 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Apr 2015, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>> On 03/04/15 05:24 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> > > Why then use __alignof(_M_i) (the object-alignment)
>> > > instead of _S_alignment (the deduced alas insufficiently
>> > > increased type-alignment)?
>>
>> Isn't the object aligned to _S_alignment?
>
>We did specify that with the alignas. Is the alignof always
>exactly the same as an alignas, if one is specified? (And will
>that not change in a future amendment, standard and/or
>implementation?) Either way, is there a test-case to guard all
>this?
The language guarantees that's what alignas() does, if the argument is
a valid alignment (which it must be if we derive it from some other
type's alignment).
>Those questions wouldn't even be asked if we used _S_alignment
>for the fake-pointer too, just as a matter of defensive
>programming.
>
>> Instead of changing every case in the condition to include sizeof why
>> not just do it afterwards using sizeof(_Tp), in the _S_alignment
>> calculation?
>
>Doh.
>
>> We know sizeof(_Tp) == sizeof(corresponding integer type) because
>> that's the whole point of the conditionals! See attachment.
>>
>> > @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>> > is_lock_free() const noexcept
>> > {
>> > // Produce a fake, minimally aligned pointer.
>> > - void *__a = reinterpret_cast<void *>(-__alignof(_M_i));
>> > + void *__a = reinterpret_cast<void *>(-_S_alignment);
>> > return __atomic_is_lock_free(sizeof(_M_i), __a);
>> > }
>>
>> If _M_i is aligned to _S_alignment then what difference does the
>> change above make?
>>
>> It doesn't matter if the value is per-object if we've forced all such
>> objects to have the same alignment, does it?
>>
>> Or is it different if a std::atomic<T> is included in some other
>> struct and the user forces a different alignment on it? I don't think
>> we really need to support that, users shouldn't be doing that.
>
>Why do we even need to ask those questions, when the patch takes
>care of the per-type business without doubt?
Well if we know the object is guaranteed to be correctly aligned we
might not even need a fake, minimally aligned pointer. We could go
back to passing &_M_i or just a null pointer to __atomic_is_lock_free.
The whole point of alignas() is to fix the alignment to a known value.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-07 9:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-12 21:23 Richard Henderson
2015-02-18 12:15 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-25 16:22 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-25 18:36 ` Richard Henderson
2015-03-25 18:49 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-25 19:04 ` Richard Henderson
2015-03-26 13:21 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-31 13:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-31 14:54 ` Richard Henderson
2015-03-31 15:03 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-03-31 15:13 ` Richard Henderson
2015-03-31 15:41 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-06 22:59 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-13 4:45 ` patch fix issue 1 with "[libstdc++/65033] Give alignment info to libatomic" Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-13 11:59 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-13 5:59 ` Issue 2 " Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-13 17:53 ` Joseph Myers
2015-03-25 18:39 ` [libstdc++/65033] Give alignment info to libatomic Richard Henderson
2015-04-03 3:04 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-03-26 11:54 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-03 3:57 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-03 9:25 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-03 14:13 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-03 19:13 ` Richard Henderson
2015-04-07 13:14 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-09 11:17 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-06 1:07 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-07 9:45 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2015-04-07 10:52 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-07 13:12 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-07 14:51 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-07 15:06 ` Jonathan Wakely
2015-04-08 3:58 ` Hans-Peter Nilsson
2015-04-08 9:35 ` Jonathan Wakely
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=20150407094458.GA9755@redhat.com \
--to=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=hp@bitrange.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rth@redhat.com \
/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).