Differential D22549 Diff 64860 contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/atomic.c

Changeset View

Standalone View

contrib/compiler-rt/lib/builtins/atomic.c

Show First 20 Lines • Show All 45 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////		////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Platform-specific lock implementation. Falls back to spinlocks if none is		// Platform-specific lock implementation. Falls back to spinlocks if none is
// defined. Each platform should define the Lock type, and corresponding		// defined. Each platform should define the Lock type, and corresponding
// lock() and unlock() functions.		// lock() and unlock() functions.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////		////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
#ifdef __FreeBSD__		#ifdef __FreeBSD__
#include <errno.h>		#include <errno.h>
#include <machine/atomic.h>
#include <sys/types.h>		#include <sys/types.h>
		#include <machine/atomic.h>
		luporlUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Why did you need to change the include order of machine/atomic.h and sys/types.h? luporl: Why did you need to change the include order of machine/atomic.h and sys/types.h?
		alfredoAuthorUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions "machine/atomic.h" uses types like "uint32_t" that are only defined in "sys/types.h", so it should come first alfredo: "machine/atomic.h" uses types like "uint32_t" that are only defined in "sys/types.h", so it…
		jhibbitsUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions I think in accordance with style(9), machine/ includes should come after all sys/ includes. jhibbits: I think in accordance with style(9), machine/ includes should come after all sys/ includes.
#include <sys/umtx.h>		#include <sys/umtx.h>
typedef struct _usem Lock;		typedef struct _usem Lock;
__inline static void unlock(Lock *l) {		__inline static void unlock(Lock *l) {
__c11_atomic_store((_Atomic(uint32_t) *)&l->_count, 1, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);		__c11_atomic_store((_Atomic(uint32_t) *)&l->_count, 1, __ATOMIC_RELEASE);
__c11_atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);		__c11_atomic_thread_fence(__ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
if (l->_has_waiters)		if (l->_has_waiters)
_umtx_op(l, UMTX_OP_SEM_WAKE, 1, 0, 0);		_umtx_op(l, UMTX_OP_SEM_WAKE, 1, 0, 0);
}		}
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 48 Lines • ▼ Show 20 Lines	static __inline Lock lock_for_pointer(void ptr) {
// Now use the high(er) set of bits to perturb the hash, so that we don't		// Now use the high(er) set of bits to perturb the hash, so that we don't
// get collisions from atomic fields in a single object		// get collisions from atomic fields in a single object
hash >>= 16;		hash >>= 16;
hash ^= low;		hash ^= low;
// Return a pointer to the word to use		// Return a pointer to the word to use
return locks + (hash & SPINLOCK_MASK);		return locks + (hash & SPINLOCK_MASK);
}		}

/// Macros for determining whether a size is lock free. Clang can not yet		/// Macros for determining whether a size is lock free.
/// codegen __atomic_is_lock_free(16), so for now we assume 16-byte values are
/// not lock free.
#define IS_LOCK_FREE_1 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(1)		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_1 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(1)
#define IS_LOCK_FREE_2 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(2)		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_2 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(2)
#define IS_LOCK_FREE_4 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(4)		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_4 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(4)

		/// 32 bit PowerPC doesn't support 8-byte lock_free atomics
		#if !defined(__powerpc64__) && (defined(__powerpc__) \|\| defined(__powerpcspe__))
		jhibbitsUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions No need for defined(powerpcspe), we just use powerpc for powerpcspe target. jhibbits: No need for defined(__powerpcspe__), we just use __powerpc__ for powerpcspe target.
		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_8 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(0)
		luporlUnsubmitted Done Inline Actions Is calling `__c11_atomic_is_lock_free(0)` really the right change here? To achieve the same goal, IS_LOCK_FREE_16 is defined to 0 instead. luporl: Is calling `__c11_atomic_is_lock_free(0)` really the right change here? To achieve the same…
		#else
#define IS_LOCK_FREE_8 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(8)		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_8 __c11_atomic_is_lock_free(8)
		#endif

		/// Clang can not yet codegen __atomic_is_lock_free(16), so for now we assume
		/// 16-byte values are not lock free.
#define IS_LOCK_FREE_16 0		#define IS_LOCK_FREE_16 0

/// Macro that calls the compiler-generated lock-free versions of functions		/// Macro that calls the compiler-generated lock-free versions of functions
/// when they exist.		/// when they exist.
#define LOCK_FREE_CASES() \		#define LOCK_FREE_CASES() \
do { \		do { \
switch (size) { \		switch (size) { \
case 1: \		case 1: \
▲ Show 20 Lines • Show All 208 Lines • Show Last 20 Lines