From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-186105-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 10834 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2007 14:57:14 -0000
Received: (qmail 10816 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jan 2007 14:57:08 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (HELO nf-out-0910.google.com) (64.233.182.184)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:57:00 +0000
Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id a25so1848264nfc         for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.152.16 with SMTP id z16mr427836bud.1168786617242;         Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:56:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.82.150.13 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jan 2007 06:56:56 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <84fc9c000701140656i205d2480h1e6992adaa8f5efd@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:57:00 -0000
From: "Richard Guenther" <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: "Eric Botcazou" <ebotcazou@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Tree SRA and atomicity/volatility
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <200701140850.31015.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200701061422.39157.ebotcazou@adacore.com> 	 <200701121500.12161.ebotcazou@adacore.com> 	 <84fc9c000701120836r5cfd514fqdfcbd7addccb2ec@mail.gmail.com> 	 <200701140850.31015.ebotcazou@adacore.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg01165.txt.bz2

On 1/14/07, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> wrote:
> > for this testcase (t02.original dump, gcc 4.1.2) .  Now if I change the
> > testcase to something I requested (direct write to a component), I get
> >
> > Q ()
> > {
> >   typedef q__byte q__byte;
> >   typedef struct q__word q__word;
> >   struct q__word T1b = {.first=0, .second=0, .third=0, .fourth=0};
> >   struct q__word external = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<struct q__word>(SAVE_EXPR
> > <T1b>);
> >
> >   VIEW_CONVERT_EXPR<struct q__word>(external).first = 0;
> >   return;
> > }
>
> You mean this I presume?
>
> External.First = 0;
>
> Then it is legal for the compiler to emit
>
>         movb    $0, -4(%ebp)
>
> because the object is not accessed "as a whole" in the source code (see the RM
> quote in my first message).

So my Ada ignorance shows here - so "atomicity" of External is only
guaranteed for copies.  Still there is nothing "clever" that gigi is doing -
it's simply doing structure assignment (with some useless
VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRs).  I think you should represent this atomic
access via a union.  But I wonder for what this form of "atomicity" is
used or useful.

Richard.