2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
#include "test/jemalloc_test.h"
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* We *almost* have consistent short names (e.g. "u32" for uint32_t, "b" for
|
|
|
|
* bool, etc. The one exception is that the short name for void * is "p" in
|
|
|
|
* some places and "ptr" in others. In the long run it would be nice to unify
|
|
|
|
* these, but in the short run we'll use this shim.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
#define expect_p_eq expect_ptr_eq
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
* t: the non-atomic type, like "uint32_t".
|
|
|
|
* ta: the short name for the type, like "u32".
|
|
|
|
* val[1,2,3]: Values of the given type. The CAS tests use val2 for expected,
|
|
|
|
* and val3 for desired.
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define DO_TESTS(t, ta, val1, val2, val3) do { \
|
|
|
|
t val; \
|
|
|
|
t expected; \
|
|
|
|
bool success; \
|
|
|
|
/* This (along with the load below) also tests ATOMIC_LOAD. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_##ta##_t atom = ATOMIC_INIT(val1); \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* ATOMIC_INIT and load. */ \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, "Load or init failed"); \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Store. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val2, val, "Store failed"); \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Exchange. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_exchange_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, "Exchange returned invalid value"); \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val2, val, "Exchange store invalid value"); \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* \
|
|
|
|
* Weak CAS. Spurious failures are allowed, so we loop a few \
|
|
|
|
* times. \
|
|
|
|
*/ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
success = false; \
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < 10 && !success; i++) { \
|
|
|
|
expected = val2; \
|
|
|
|
success = atomic_compare_exchange_weak_##ta(&atom, \
|
|
|
|
&expected, val3, ATOMIC_RELAXED, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, expected, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"CAS should update expected"); \
|
|
|
|
} \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_b_eq(val1 == val2, success, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Weak CAS did the wrong state update"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
if (success) { \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val3, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Successful CAS should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
} else { \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Unsuccessful CAS should not update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
} \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Strong CAS. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
expected = val2; \
|
|
|
|
success = atomic_compare_exchange_strong_##ta(&atom, &expected, \
|
|
|
|
val3, ATOMIC_RELAXED, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_b_eq(val1 == val2, success, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Strong CAS did the wrong state update"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
if (success) { \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val3, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Successful CAS should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
} else { \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Unsuccessful CAS should not update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
} \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
\
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
} while (0)
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
#define DO_INTEGER_TESTS(t, ta, val1, val2) do { \
|
|
|
|
atomic_##ta##_t atom; \
|
|
|
|
t val; \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Fetch-add. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_fetch_add_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-add should return previous value"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1 + val2, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-add should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Fetch-sub. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_fetch_sub_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-sub should return previous value"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1 - val2, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-sub should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Fetch-and. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_fetch_and_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-and should return previous value"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1 & val2, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-and should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Fetch-or. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_fetch_or_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-or should return previous value"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1 | val2, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-or should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
/* Fetch-xor. */ \
|
|
|
|
atomic_store_##ta(&atom, val1, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_fetch_xor_##ta(&atom, val2, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-xor should return previous value"); \
|
|
|
|
val = atomic_load_##ta(&atom, ATOMIC_RELAXED); \
|
2020-02-19 06:39:06 +08:00
|
|
|
expect_##ta##_eq(val1 ^ val2, val, \
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
"Fetch-xor should update atomic"); \
|
|
|
|
} while (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define TEST_STRUCT(t, ta) \
|
|
|
|
typedef struct { \
|
|
|
|
t val1; \
|
|
|
|
t val2; \
|
|
|
|
t val3; \
|
|
|
|
} ta##_test_t;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define TEST_CASES(t) { \
|
|
|
|
{(t)-1, (t)-1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t)-1, (t) 0, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t)-1, (t) 1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
{(t) 0, (t)-1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t) 0, (t) 0, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t) 0, (t) 1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
{(t) 1, (t)-1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t) 1, (t) 0, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t) 1, (t) 1, (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
\
|
|
|
|
{(t)0, (t)-(1 << 22), (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t)0, (t)(1 << 22), (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t)(1 << 22), (t)-(1 << 22), (t)-2}, \
|
|
|
|
{(t)(1 << 22), (t)(1 << 22), (t)-2} \
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define TEST_BODY(t, ta) do { \
|
|
|
|
const ta##_test_t tests[] = TEST_CASES(t); \
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned i = 0; i < sizeof(tests)/sizeof(tests[0]); i++) { \
|
|
|
|
ta##_test_t test = tests[i]; \
|
|
|
|
DO_TESTS(t, ta, test.val1, test.val2, test.val3); \
|
|
|
|
} \
|
|
|
|
} while (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#define INTEGER_TEST_BODY(t, ta) do { \
|
|
|
|
const ta##_test_t tests[] = TEST_CASES(t); \
|
|
|
|
for (unsigned i = 0; i < sizeof(tests)/sizeof(tests[0]); i++) { \
|
|
|
|
ta##_test_t test = tests[i]; \
|
|
|
|
DO_TESTS(t, ta, test.val1, test.val2, test.val3); \
|
|
|
|
DO_INTEGER_TESTS(t, ta, test.val1, test.val2); \
|
|
|
|
} \
|
|
|
|
} while (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(uint64_t, u64);
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_u64) {
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
#if !(LG_SIZEOF_PTR == 3 || LG_SIZEOF_INT == 3)
|
|
|
|
test_skip("64-bit atomic operations not supported");
|
|
|
|
#else
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
INTEGER_TEST_BODY(uint64_t, u64);
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
#endif
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(uint32_t, u32);
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_u32) {
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
INTEGER_TEST_BODY(uint32_t, u32);
|
2015-02-03 05:49:08 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(void *, p);
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_p) {
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BODY(void *, p);
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(size_t, zu);
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_zu) {
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
INTEGER_TEST_BODY(size_t, zu);
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
2017-03-07 03:40:58 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(ssize_t, zd);
|
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_zd) {
|
|
|
|
INTEGER_TEST_BODY(ssize_t, zd);
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_STRUCT(unsigned, u);
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
TEST_BEGIN(test_atomic_u) {
|
Introduce a backport of C11 atomics
This introduces a backport of C11 atomics. It has four implementations; ranked
in order of preference, they are:
- GCC/Clang __atomic builtins
- GCC/Clang __sync builtins
- MSVC _Interlocked builtins
- C11 atomics, from <stdatomic.h>
The primary advantages are:
- Close adherence to the standard API gives us a defined memory model.
- Type safety: atomic objects are now separate types from non-atomic ones, so
that it's impossible to mix up atomic and non-atomic updates (which is
undefined behavior that compilers are starting to take advantage of).
- Efficiency: we can specify ordering for operations, avoiding fences and
atomic operations on strongly ordered architectures (example:
`atomic_write_u32(ptr, val);` involves a CAS loop, whereas
`atomic_store(ptr, val, ATOMIC_RELEASE);` is a plain store.
This diff leaves in the current atomics API (implementing them in terms of the
backport). This lets us transition uses over piecemeal.
Testing:
This is by nature hard to test. I've manually tested the first three options on
Linux on gcc by futzing with the #defines manually, on freebsd with gcc and
clang, on MSVC, and on OS X with clang. All of these were x86 machines though,
and we don't have any test infrastructure set up for non-x86 platforms.
2017-01-26 01:54:27 +08:00
|
|
|
INTEGER_TEST_BODY(unsigned, u);
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
TEST_END
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
int
|
2017-01-16 08:56:30 +08:00
|
|
|
main(void) {
|
2017-01-20 10:15:45 +08:00
|
|
|
return test(
|
2016-11-08 03:27:48 +08:00
|
|
|
test_atomic_u64,
|
|
|
|
test_atomic_u32,
|
2015-02-03 05:49:08 +08:00
|
|
|
test_atomic_p,
|
2016-11-08 03:27:48 +08:00
|
|
|
test_atomic_zu,
|
2017-03-07 03:40:58 +08:00
|
|
|
test_atomic_zd,
|
2017-01-20 10:15:45 +08:00
|
|
|
test_atomic_u);
|
2014-08-07 14:36:19 +08:00
|
|
|
}
|