From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28090 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2009 18:41:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 28076 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2009 18:41:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 18:41:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7HIf850027651; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:41:08 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7HIf7si021921; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:41:07 -0400 Received: from stone.twiddle.home (vpn-9-238.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.9.238]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7HIf5Rv026866; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:41:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4A89A43F.4090608@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 19:34:00 -0000 From: Richard Henderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090513 Fedora/3.0-2.3.beta2.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Paolo Bonzini CC: David Daney , GCC Patches , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [Patch] MIPS: Emit optimized sync instructions for Octeon CPUs. References: <4A8454BF.2050701@caviumnetworks.com> <87ws55a64w.fsf@firetop.home> <4A898A83.2040405@caviumnetworks.com> <4A899FD5.6020604@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <4A899FD5.6020604@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00932.txt.bz2 On 08/17/2009 11:22 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 08/17/2009 06:51 PM, David Daney wrote: >> >> What do you think about adding an additional optional parameter to >> __sync_synchronize that would weaken it to just a write barrier? > > I'd rather have __sync_rmb and __sync_wmb (or maybe > __sync_acquire_synchronize and __sync_release_synchronize?). I'd like to have RMB and WMB, since these get used (via asm) in libgomp and such. However, instead of extending the __sync functions, perhaps we should work more toward the c++0x atomics thing that was discussed here recently. r~