Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/5] arch: atomic rework

[Paul E. McKenney]

On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:10:54PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2014, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> 
> > This needs to be as follows:
> > 
> > [[carries_dependency]] int getzero(int i [[carries_dependency]])
> > {
> > 	return i - i;
> > }
> > 
> > Otherwise dependencies won't get carried through it.
> 
> C11 doesn't have attributes at all (and no specification regarding calls 
> and dependencies that I can see).  And the way I read the C++11 
> specification of carries_dependency is that specifying carries_dependency 
> is purely about increasing optimization of the caller: that if it isn't 
> specified, then the caller doesn't know what dependencies might be 
> carried.  "Note: The carries_dependency attribute does not change the 
> meaning of the program, but may result in generation of more efficient 
> code. - end note".

Good point -- I am so used to them being in gcc that I missed that.

In which case, it seems to me that straight C11 is within its rights
to emit a memory barrier just before control passes into a function
that either it can't see or that it chose to apply dependency-breaking
optimizations to.

							Thanx, Paul

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/