On 01/30/2017 07:54 PM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
Hi,
The internals doc still lists CAS (
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccint/Standard-Names.html#index-atomic_00
On 02/03/2017 05:44 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 02/02/17 15:21, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based o
On Wed, Feb 01, 2017 at 06:26:04PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
>
> After an off-list OK by Jakub
On Sat, Feb 04, 2017 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
> > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
> > …
>
> Commit r245098 caused
>
> New failures:
> FAIL: libgomp.c/atomic-2.c (test
> This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
> …
Commit r245098 caused
New failures:
FAIL: libgomp.c/atomic-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c/atomic-4.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: libgomp.c
On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 17:21 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:19:58PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > > Would it be acceptable for those users to have loads that perform like
> > > > CAS loops, especially under contention? Or are these users more
> > > > concerned a
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:19:58PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > Would it be acceptable for those users to have loads that perform like
> > > CAS loops, especially under contention? Or are these users more
> > > concerned about aarch64 not offering a true atomic 16-byte load?
> >
> > C
On 03/02/17 15:13, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:07:22PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 13:44 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
__atomic_load on ARM appears to be ok as well
except for
__atomic_load_di which should really be the ldrexd / strexd loop but
On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 04:07:22PM +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 13:44 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > __atomic_load on ARM appears to be ok as well
> >
> > except for
> >
> > __atomic_load_di which should really be the ldrexd / strexd loop but we
> > could ameliora
On Fri, 2017-02-03 at 13:44 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> __atomic_load on ARM appears to be ok as well
>
> except for
>
> __atomic_load_di which should really be the ldrexd / strexd loop but we
> could ameliorate that similar to your option 3b.
This uses just ldrexd now, and thus is not
On 02/02/17 15:21, Torvald Riegel wrote:
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
If there is no
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 13:58 +0100, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > The other failures I saw didn't seem atomics related
> > (eg, openacc)
>
> I suppose you're testing without nvptx offloading -- which failures do
> you see for OpenACC testing? (There shouldn't be any for host fallback
> testing.)
Sor
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:48 +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
> >
> > If there is no hardware-backed atomic load
On 02/02/17 14:52, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:48:42PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
If there
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:48:42PM +, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> > lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
> >
> > If there is no hardware-backed atom
On 30/01/17 18:54, Torvald Riegel wrote:
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
If there is no hardware-backed atomic load for a certain memory
location, the current implementation can implement the lo
Hi!
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 19:54:00 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation. [...]
> I've tested this on an x86_64-linux bootstrap build and see no
> regressions. (With th
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:54 +0100, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
> lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
After an off-list OK by Jakub, I have committed this as r245098.
Jakub will take care of the OpenMP sid
This patch fixes the __atomic builtins to not implement supposedly
lock-free atomic loads based on just a compare-and-swap operation.
If there is no hardware-backed atomic load for a certain memory
location, the current implementation can implement the load with a CAS
while claiming that the acces
19 matches
Mail list logo
