From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@appliantology.com>,
Thomas Rodgers <trodgers@redhat.com>,
libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@twrodgers.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic compare_exchange
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2021 14:28:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210929122819.GN304296@tucnak> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4=dS6mPgzHtXfva9x52u4v2H_O=j=57npUDyn8rcYwU2w@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 01:13:46PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> But I think that's OK, as I think the built-in is
> smart enough to be a no-op for types with no padding.
Yes. The only effect it will have is that during the initial optimization
passes the variable/parameter will be addressable where without the call and
__addressof it wouldn't be; but as soon as __builtin_clear_padding is folded
to nothing if there is no padding or something if there is (which happens
quite early) and TODO_update_address_taken is done at the end
of some pass, it will no longer be addressable (unless something different
keeps taking its address).
Jakub
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-29 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-09-23 18:08 Thomas Rodgers
2021-09-23 19:07 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-09-23 20:15 ` Thomas Rodgers
2021-09-23 20:15 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-09-27 14:10 ` Thomas Rodgers
2021-09-29 12:13 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-09-29 12:18 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-09-29 12:28 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2021-09-29 18:22 ` Thomas Rodgers
2021-09-29 18:29 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-11-02 1:25 ` Thomas Rodgers
2021-11-02 7:49 ` Jakub Jelinek
2021-11-03 3:06 ` Thomas Rodgers
2021-11-02 8:49 ` Daniel Krügler
2022-01-18 21:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-08-25 10:11 ` Patch ping (was Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Clear padding bits in atomic compare_exchange) Jakub Jelinek
2022-09-01 22:57 ` Thomas Rodgers
2022-09-07 11:56 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-09-07 22:06 ` Thomas Rodgers
2022-09-09 18:36 ` Rainer Orth
2022-09-09 18:46 ` Iain Sandoe
2022-09-09 19:01 ` Thomas Rodgers
2022-09-09 20:14 ` 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=20210929122819.GN304296@tucnak \
--to=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rodgert@appliantology.com \
--cc=rodgert@twrodgers.com \
--cc=trodgers@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).