Here is the new patch.

It links libatomic when -fprofile-gen-atomic is specified for FDO
instrumentation build. Here I assume libatomic is always installed.
Andrew: do you think if this is reasonable?

It also disables the functionality if target does not support weak
(ie. TARGET_SUPPORTS_WEAK == 0).

Thanks,

-Rong

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:05 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:25 AM, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Here is a new patch. The only difference is to declare
>>> __atomic_fetch_add as weak. This is
>>> needed for targets without sync/atomic builtin support. The patch
>>> contains a call to the builtin regardless of the new options
>>> -fprofile-gen-atomic. This results in a unsat in these targets even
>>> for regular profile-gen built.
>>>
>>> With this new patch, if the user uses -fprofile-gen-atomic in these
>>> target, the generated code will seg fault.
>>>
>>> We think a better solution is to emit the builtin call only in these
>>> targets with the support, and give warning for non-supported target.
>>> But I did not find any target hook for this. Does anyone know how to
>>> do this?
>>
>> Why not use libatomic for those targets?
>
> Also note that not all targets support 'weak' linkage.

How about check the flag TARGET_SUPPORTS_WEAK, and only enable the
code when the flag is true.
>
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew Pinski
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> -Rong
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>>>> It would be great if this can make into gcc4.8. The patch has close to
>>>> 0 impact on code stability.
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Honza,
>>>>>
>>>>> In the other thread of discussion (similar patch in google-4_7
>>>>> branch), you said you were thinking if to let this patch into trunk in
>>>>> stage 3. Can you give some update?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Rong
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Rong Xu <xur@google.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch adds support of atomic update of profiles counters. The goal is to improve
>>>>>>>> the poor counter values for highly thread programs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The atomic update is under a new option -fprofile-gen-atomic=<N>
>>>>>>>> N=0: default, no atomic update
>>>>>>>> N=1: atomic update edge counters.
>>>>>>>> N=2: atomic update some of value profile counters (currently indirect-call and one value profile).
>>>>>>>> N=3: both edge counter and the above value profile counters.
>>>>>>>> Other value: fall back to the default.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This patch is a simple porting of the version in google-4_7 branch. It uses __atomic_fetch_add
>>>>>>>> based on Andrew Pinski's suggestion. Note I did not apply to all the value profiles as
>>>>>>>> the indirect-call profile is the most relevant one here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Test with bootstrap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Comments and suggestions are welcomed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -Rong
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2012-12-20  Rong Xu  <xur@google.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>       * libgcc/libgcov.c (__gcov_one_value_profiler_body_atomic): New
>>>>>>>>         function. Atomic update profile counters.
>>>>>>>>       (__gcov_one_value_profiler_atomic): Ditto.
>>>>>>>>       (__gcov_indirect_call_profiler_atomic): Ditto.
>>>>>>>>       * gcc/gcov-io.h: Macros for atomic update.
>>>>>>>>       * gcc/common.opt: New option.
>>>>>>>>       * gcc/tree-profile.c (gimple_init_edge_profiler): Atomic
>>>>>>>>         update profile counters.
>>>>>>>>       (gimple_gen_edge_profiler): Ditto.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The patch looks resonable.  Eventually we probably should provide rest of the value counters
>>>>>>> in thread safe manner.  What happens on targets not having atomic operations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/_005f_005fsync-Builtins.html#_005f_005fsync-Builtins,
>>>>>> it says:
>>>>>>       "If a particular operation cannot be implemented on the target
>>>>>> processor, a warning is generated and a call an external function is
>>>>>> generated. "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think there will be a warning and eventually a link error of unsat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Rong
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Honza