delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Recipient: | archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com |
X-Original-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Delivered-To: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
Subject: | Re: gcc and 128-bit compare/exchange |
From: | Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> |
To: | cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
References: | <ab69ca04-06a2-eeb9-4771-e37432b59a77 AT cs DOT umass DOT edu> |
Message-ID: | <f27b324f-049c-7830-68cd-14813aab6eed@cs.umass.edu> |
Date: | Sun, 8 Mar 2020 22:59:51 -0400 |
User-Agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 |
Thunderbird/68.5.0 | |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
In-Reply-To: | <ab69ca04-06a2-eeb9-4771-e37432b59a77@cs.umass.edu> |
X-Spam-Status: | No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 |
X-Spam-Checker-Version: | SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org |
X-BeenThere: | cygwin AT cygwin DOT com |
X-Mailman-Version: | 2.1.29 |
List-Id: | Cygwin mailing list <cygwin.cygwin.com> |
List-Unsubscribe: | <http://cygwin.com/mailman/options/cygwin>, |
<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=unsubscribe> | |
List-Archive: | <http://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/> |
List-Post: | <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com> |
List-Help: | <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help> |
List-Subscribe: | <http://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>, |
<mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe> | |
Reply-To: | moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu |
Errors-To: | cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com |
Sender: | "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces AT cygwin DOT com> |
X-MIME-Autoconverted: | from base64 to 8bit by delorie.com id 029IpbXo015657 |
On 3/8/2020 10:29 PM, Eliot Moss wrote: > This is probably to the gcc maintainer ... > > I am running on a processor that has compare/exchange 128-bit (cx16 capability), > and I compiler with -mcx16 and -latomic. I'm on the latest release cygwin gcc > (9.2.0-3, I believe) and the corresponding libatomic. I have a program with > this in it: > > __atomic_compare_exchange((__int128 *)&s1, (__int128 *)&z, (__int128 *)&s2, 0, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, > __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST); > > This compiles to a call (nice if it would inline, but ...) to > __atomic_compare_exchange_16, which uses mutex's, not the CMPXCHG16B > instruction I was hoping for. Note I am doing dynamic linking, > which on at least one other platform results in dynamic selection > of a lib_at implementation of the compare/exchange, which does use > the desired instruction. > > Is this a limitation of cygwin gcc, or should I be doing something > different to achieve the desired effect? > > Obviously it would be best not to going an asm inline if I can avoid it, > but I suppose I can dig into the libatomic source to get the right > incantation for it if need be ... A quick followup: I was able to get __sync_val_compare_and_swap_16 to work (and its bool form). That will do for now, though of course it's deprecated. Regards - EM "--Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.htmlFAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.htmlUnsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple"
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |