From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-16 19:03:01
Howard Hinnant wrote:
> My real problem is that I'm a neophyte in the bewildering world of
> gcc asm syntax.
Aren't we all?
> I've been studying:
> on the good advice of some colleagues. The other advice I'm getting
> is that there is still a bug in:
> Looking at just atomic_increment:
> inline void atomic_increment( int * pw )
> int tmp;
> "lwarx %1, 0, %2\n\t"
> "addi %1, %1, 1\n\t"
> "stwcx. %1, 0, %2\n\t"
> "bne- 0b":
> "=m"( *pw ), "=&b"( tmp ):
> "r"( pw ):
> My current understanding is that the "=m" constraint indicates that
> *pw is write-only, and should be changed to "+m" to indicate read/
> write (to memory). Indeed when I make this change, my test case
> clears right up. It also appears that atomic_decrement and
> atomic_conditional_increment could use this treatment as well.
Looks like a bug. Hmm. I think I remember something about +m causing
internal compiler errors and not working in general (for some versions of
g++); that's why the x86 version uses "=m"(*pw) as an output and "m"(*pw) as
an input. But there are no "m"(*pw) inputs in PPC and IA64!
Can you try the +m change on as many g++ versions as possible? I may be
misremembering things. Or can you try the potentially safer alternative of
adding "m"( *pw ) as an input and see whether this also works?
If you contribute your test case, this will be appreciated, too.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk