From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-141158-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 17073 invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2007 23:07:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 17064 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Oct 2007 23:07:57 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.artimi.com (HELO mail.artimi.com) (194.72.81.2)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:07:54 +0000
Received: from rainbow ([192.168.8.46]) by mail.artimi.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); 	 Mon, 22 Oct 2007 00:07:51 +0100
From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: "'Tomash Brechko'" <tomash.brechko@gmail.com>, 	<gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
References: <20071021145513.GB4925@moonlight.home>
Subject: RE: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:07:00 -0000
Message-ID: <00cd01c81437$34ada090$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <20071021145513.GB4925@moonlight.home>
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00270.txt.bz2

On 21 October 2007 15:55, Tomash Brechko wrote:

> Consider this piece of code:
> 
>     extern int v;
> 
>     void
>     f(int set_v)
>     {
>       if (set_v)
>         v = 1;
>     }

>     f:
>             pushl   %ebp
>             movl    %esp, %ebp
>             cmpl    $0, 8(%ebp)
>             movl    $1, %eax
>             cmove   v, %eax        ; load (maybe)
>             movl    %eax, v        ; store (always)
>             popl    %ebp
>             ret
> 
> Note the last unconditional store to v.  
> So, could someone explain me why this GCC optimization is valid, 

  Because of the 'as-if' rule.  Since the standard is neutral with regard to
threads, gcc does not have to take them into account when it decides whether
an optimisation would satisfy the 'as-if' rule.

  If you really want all externally-visible accesses to v to be made exactly
as the code directs, rather than allowing gcc to optimise them in any way that
(from the program's POV) it's just the same 'as-if' they had been done
exactly, make v volatile.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....