Re: [boost] [lock-free] CDS -yet another lock-free library

Subject: Re: [boost] [lock-free] CDS -yet another lock-free library
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-29 10:48:40

AMDG

Khiszinsky, Maxim wrote:
> 2. Function-based implementation of atomics produces non-optimal code in some cases. Consider the usual implementation of atomic with explicit memory ordering:
> Static inline void store( atomic_t * pDest, atomic_t nVal, memory_order order ) 
> {
>    switch ( order ) {
>       case memory_order_relaxed: *pDest = nVal; break ;
>       case ... 
>       case ... 
>    }
> }
> The problem is that the compiler (in some cases) generates case-based code when 'order' parameter is constant for caller:
>    store( &myAtomic, 10, memory_order_relaxed) ;
> in this case instead of ONE assembler store instruction the compiler may generate many branch instruction. It is not optimal :-(. And 99% of code with atomic primitives has *constant* memory_order parameter.
>   

Have you actually observed this?  On which compilers?

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe