Inspired by a recent question, I'd like to know if anyone knows how to get gcc
to generate the x86-64 bts
instruction (bit test and set) on the Linux x86-64 platforms, without resorting to inline assembly or to nonstandard compiler intrinsics.
Related questions:
Why doesn't gcc do this for a simple |=
operation were the right-hand side has exactly 1 bit set?
How to get bts
using compiler intrinsics or the asm
directive
Portability is more important to me than bts
, so I won't use and asm
directive, and if there's another solution, I prefer not to use compiler instrinsics.
EDIT: The C source language does not support atomic operations, so I'm not particularly interested in getting atomic test-and-set (even though that's the original reason for test-and-set to exist in the first place). If I want something atomic I know I have no chance of doing it with standard C source: it has to be an intrinsic, a library function, or inline assembly. (I have implemented atomic operations in compilers that support multiple threads.)
It is in the first answer for the first link - how much does it matter in grand scheme of things. The only part when you test bits are:
The overall impact on performance of applications and macrobenchmarks is likely to be minimal even if microbenchmarks shows an improvement.
To the Edit part - using bts
alone does not guarantee the atomic of the operation. All it guarantee is that it will be atomic on this core (so is or
done on memory). On multi-processor units (uncommon) or multi-core units (very common) you still have to synchronize with other processors.
As synchronization is much more expensive I belive that difference between:
asm("lock bts %0, %1" : "+m" (*array) : "r" (bit));
and
asm("lock or %0, %1" : "+m" (*array) : "r" (1 << bit));
is minimal. And the second form:
__sync_fetch_and_or (array, 1 << bit)
form (working on gcc and intel compiler as far as I remember).I use the gcc atomic builtins such as __sync_lock_test_and_set
( http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.2/gcc/Atomic-Builtins.html ). Changing the -march
flag will directly affect what is generated. I'm using it with i686
right now, but http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.2/gcc/i386-and-x86_002d64-Options.html#i386-and-x86_002d64-Options shows all the possibilities.
I realize it's not exactly what you are asking for, but I found those two web pages very useful when I was looking for mechanisms like that.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With