[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #1 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2008-11-21 11:16 --- Just to confirm the bug: the gcc doc says it follows the Intel itanium binary interface. The Intel documentation says « Associated with each instrinsic are certain memory barrier properties that restrict th

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 17:22 --- H.J. can probably confirm this. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 17:36 --- __sync_synchronize isn't specified for IA32/Intel64. You can check out Intel Memory Ordering White Paper: www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/318147.pdf to see what is the most appropriate. -- http://gcc.

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 17:37 --- The Intel Memory Ordering White Paper is at http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/318147.pdf -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36793

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #5 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2008-11-21 23:20 --- We do already know which x86 memory barrier instruction we need, that's not the problem, no need to give us pointers to documentations. The problem is that we'd like to not use explicit x86 instructions but

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-21 Thread hjl dot tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-11-21 23:38 --- I think it is a bug. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36793

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-22 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #7 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-22 18:29 --- Patch that implements "memory_barrier" for x86 at [1]. [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01181.html -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added -

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-22 Thread samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org
--- Comment #8 from samuel dot thibault at ens-lyon dot org 2008-11-22 19:41 --- Ah, well, by "nop", I was thinking about things like what Linux does: lock; addl $0,0(%%esp) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36793

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-24 Thread uros at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from uros at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-24 16:57 --- Subject: Bug 36793 Author: uros Date: Mon Nov 24 16:55:49 2008 New Revision: 142160 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=142160 Log: * config/i386/i386.md (UNSPECV_CMPXCHG): Rename from

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-24 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #10 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-24 16:59 --- Fixed. -- ubizjak at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug target/36793] x86-64 does not get __sync_synchronize right

2008-11-25 Thread ubizjak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #11 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2008-11-25 09:15 --- Should we fix __sync_synchronize in 4.3 too? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36793