Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > C++ Moderated > Re: Compiler or...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 3 of 15 Topic 9538 of 9823
Post > Topic >>

Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x

by Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > May 2, 2008 at 04:43 AM

Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyukov@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:

> Will it be possible to issue only compiler ordering barrier (release,
> acquire or full), but not hardware ordering barrier in C++0x?
>
> Accesses to volatile variables are ordered only with respect to
> accesses to other volatile variables. What I want it to order access
> to variable with respect to accesses to all other volatile and non-
> volatile variables (w/o any hardware barriers, only compiler
> ordering).

Within a single thread, all operations *are* ordered. The ordering
relations
are happens-before and sequenced-before. A is sequenced-before before B
when
A physically comes before B in the source code, or the sequencing rules
say so
(e.g. lhs of a comma op is sequenced before rhs).

If A is sequenced-before B, then A also happens-before B. If you then
introduce a synchronization edge between thread T1 and thread T2
(e.g. store(mem_order_release) on T1, load(mem_order_acquire) on T2), then
anything that happens-before the store also happens-before the load.

> Such compiler barriers are useful in effective synchronization
> algorithms like SMR+RCU:
> http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=127837
> (fastsmr package)
> because they allows one to eliminate all hardware memory barriers from
> fast-path.

All accesses to shared data MUST be synchronized with atomics: if there
are
two accesses to a non-atomic variable, at least one of which is a write,
and
there is NOT a happens-before relation between them, you have a data race,
and
undefined behaviour.

If you can prove that you have a happens-before relation, you're safe,
otherwise you need to do some synchronization, or perhaps use
mem_order_relaxed.

Anthony
-- 
Anthony Williams            | Just Software Solutions Ltd
Custom Software Development | http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk
Registered in England, Company Number 5478976.
Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL

      [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm
for info about ]
      [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]
 




 15 Posts in Topic:
Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyuko  2008-04-24 01:04:20 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
nickf3 <nickf3@[EMAIL   2008-04-28 01:59:21 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Anthony Williams <anth  2008-05-02 04:43:58 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Szabolcs Ferenczi <sza  2008-05-02 12:48:39 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Anthony Williams <anth  2008-05-03 06:13:29 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
"Dmitriy V'jukov&quo  2008-05-03 06:13:29 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Anthony Williams <anth  2008-05-03 16:12:38 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
"Chris Thomasson&quo  2008-05-04 17:15:28 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
"Chris Thomasson&quo  2008-05-04 17:15:07 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Szabolcs Ferenczi <sza  2008-05-04 17:17:14 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
"Chris Thomasson&quo  2008-05-05 07:09:38 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Anthony Williams <anth  2008-05-05 07:08:05 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Dmitriy Vyukov <dvyuko  2008-05-05 07:08:12 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
James Kanze <james.kan  2008-05-05 08:32:47 
Re: Compiler ordering barriers in C++0x
Szabolcs Ferenczi <sza  2008-05-05 12:35:31 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Thu Jul 24 1:36:11 CDT 2008.