Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Richard Sandiford
> <rdsandif...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> writes:
>>> On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 10:17:41AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>> asm(".alias __sync_synchronize sync_synchronize");
>>>
>>> It is .set, but not everywhere.
>>> /* The MIPS assembler has different syntax for .set. We set it to
>>> .dummy to trap any errors. */
>>> #undef SET_ASM_OP
>>> #define SET_ASM_OP "\t.dummy\t"
>>> But perhaps it would require fewer variants than providing inline asm
>>> of the __sync_* builtin by hand for all the targets that need it.
>>
>> Yeah, that's why I prefer the sed approach. GCC knows how to do exactly
>> what we want, and what syntax to use. We just need to take its output and
>> change the function name.
>>
>> And like Richard says, parsing top-level asms would be fair game,
>> especially if GCC and binutils ever were integrated (for libgccjit.so).
>> So using top-level asms seems like putting off the inevitable
>> (albeit putting it off further than __asm renaming).
>>
>> Do either of you object to the sed thing?
>
> Well, ideally there would be a way to not lie about symbol names to GCC.
> That is, have a "native" way of telling GCC what to do here (which is
> as far as I understand to emit the code for the builtin-handled $SYM
> in a function with $SYM - provide the out-of-line copy for a builtin).
>
> For the __sync functions it's unfortunate that the library function has
> the same 'name' as the builtin and the builtin doesn't have an alternate
> spelling. So - can't we just add __builtin__sync_... spellings and use
>
> __sync_synchronize ()
> {
> __builtin_sync_syncronize ();
> }
>
> ? (what if __builtin_sync_syncronize expands to a libcall? if it can't,
> what's the point of the library function?)
It can't expand to a libcall in nomips16 mode. It always expands to a
libcall in mips16 mode. The point is to provide out-of-line nomips16
functions that the mips16 code can call.
> Why does a simple
>
> __sync_synchronize ()
> {
> __sync_synchronize ();
> }
>
> not work? On x86_64 I get from that:
>
> __sync_synchronize:
> .LFB0:
> .cfi_startproc
> mfence
> ret
> .cfi_endproc
>
> (similar to how you can have a definition of memcpy () and have
> another memcpy inside it inline-expanded)
Is that with optimisation enabled? -O2 gives me:
__sync_synchronize:
.LFB0:
.cfi_startproc
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L2:
jmp .L2
.cfi_endproc
.LFE0:
We do want to compile this stuff with optimisation enabled.
Thanks,
Richard
