[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #11 from Wilco --- (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #10) > (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > > (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > > > Yes that sounds like a reasonable approach. > > > > I don't think so. Not

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #10 from Niall Douglas --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #9) > (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > > Yes that sounds like a reasonable approach. > > I don't think so. Not all variables on which __atomic_* intrinsics

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #9 from Jakub Jelinek --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #8) > Yes that sounds like a reasonable approach. I don't think so. Not all variables on which __atomic_* intrinsics are used are actually _Atomic, the vars can be embedded

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #8 from Wilco --- (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #7) > (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > > (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #3) > > > You may be interested in reading https://reviews.llvm.org/D110069. It

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #7 from Niall Douglas --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #4) > (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #3) > > You may be interested in reading https://reviews.llvm.org/D110069. It wanted > > to have LLVM generate a 128

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Wilco from comment #5) > To me a far worse issue is that this difference for 128-bit atomics means > that LLVM and GCC are binary incompatible. AFAIK isn't an option to make > them compatible

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread wilco at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 Wilco changed: What|Removed |Added CC||wilco at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Niall Douglas from comment #3) > You may be interested in reading https://reviews.llvm.org/D110069. It wanted > to have LLVM generate a 128 bit AArch64 CAS for atomics. LLVM merged that >

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread s_gccbugzilla at nedprod dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 --- Comment #3 from Niall Douglas --- > AMD has guaranteed it, but there is still VIA and Zhaoxin and while we have > some statement from the latter, I'm not sure it is enough and we don't have > anything from VIA. See PR104688 for details.

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 ktkachov at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ktkachov at gcc dot

[Bug target/108659] Suboptimal 128 bit atomics codegen on AArch64 and x64

2023-02-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108659 Jakub Jelinek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment