postgresql/config/c-compiler.m4

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

664 lines
24 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

# Macros to detect C compiler features
2010-09-20 22:08:53 +02:00
# config/c-compiler.m4
# PGAC_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE
# ---------------------
# Select the format archetype to be used by gcc to check printf-type functions.
# We prefer "gnu_printf", as that most closely matches the features supported
# by src/port/snprintf.c (particularly the %m conversion spec). However,
# on some NetBSD versions, that doesn't work while "__syslog__" does.
# If all else fails, use "printf".
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK([for printf format archetype], pgac_cv_printf_archetype,
[pgac_cv_printf_archetype=gnu_printf
PGAC_TEST_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE
if [[ "$ac_archetype_ok" = no ]]; then
pgac_cv_printf_archetype=__syslog__
PGAC_TEST_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE
if [[ "$ac_archetype_ok" = no ]]; then
pgac_cv_printf_archetype=printf
fi
fi])
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([PG_PRINTF_ATTRIBUTE], [$pgac_cv_printf_archetype],
[Define to best printf format archetype, usually gnu_printf if available.])
])# PGAC_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE
# Subroutine: test $pgac_cv_printf_archetype, set $ac_archetype_ok to yes or no
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_TEST_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE],
[ac_save_c_werror_flag=$ac_c_werror_flag
ac_c_werror_flag=yes
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM(
[extern void pgac_write(int ignore, const char *fmt,...)
__attribute__((format($pgac_cv_printf_archetype, 2, 3)));],
[pgac_write(0, "error %s: %m", "foo");])],
[ac_archetype_ok=yes],
[ac_archetype_ok=no])
ac_c_werror_flag=$ac_save_c_werror_flag
])# PGAC_TEST_PRINTF_ARCHETYPE
# PGAC_TYPE_64BIT_INT(TYPE)
# -------------------------
# Check if TYPE is a working 64 bit integer type. Set HAVE_TYPE_64 to
# yes or no respectively, and define HAVE_TYPE_64 if yes.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_TYPE_64BIT_INT],
[define([Ac_define], [translit([have_$1_64], [a-z *], [A-Z_P])])dnl
define([Ac_cachevar], [translit([pgac_cv_type_$1_64], [ *], [_p])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether $1 is 64 bits], [Ac_cachevar],
[AC_RUN_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE(
[typedef $1 ac_int64;
/*
* These are globals to discourage the compiler from folding all the
* arithmetic tests down to compile-time constants.
*/
ac_int64 a = 20000001;
ac_int64 b = 40000005;
int does_int64_work()
{
ac_int64 c,d;
if (sizeof(ac_int64) != 8)
return 0; /* definitely not the right size */
/* Do perfunctory checks to see if 64-bit arithmetic seems to work */
c = a * b;
d = (c + b) / b;
if (d != a+1)
return 0;
return 1;
}
int
main() {
return (! does_int64_work());
}])],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no],
[# If cross-compiling, check the size reported by the compiler and
# trust that the arithmetic works.
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_BOOL_COMPILE_TRY([], [sizeof($1) == 8])],
Ac_cachevar=yes,
Ac_cachevar=no)])])
Ac_define=$Ac_cachevar
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(Ac_define, 1, [Define to 1 if `]$1[' works and is 64 bits.])
fi
undefine([Ac_define])dnl
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_TYPE_64BIT_INT
# PGAC_TYPE_128BIT_INT
# --------------------
# Check if __int128 is a working 128 bit integer type, and if so
Prevent int128 from requiring more than MAXALIGN alignment. Our initial work with int128 neglected alignment considerations, an oversight that came back to bite us in bug #14897 from Vincent Lachenal. It is unsurprising that int128 might have a 16-byte alignment requirement; what's slightly more surprising is that even notoriously lax Intel chips sometimes enforce that. Raising MAXALIGN seems out of the question: the costs in wasted disk and memory space would be significant, and there would also be an on-disk compatibility break. Nor does it seem very practical to try to allow some data structures to have more-than-MAXALIGN alignment requirement, as we'd have to push knowledge of that throughout various code that copies data structures around. The only way out of the box is to make type int128 conform to the system's alignment assumptions. Fortunately, gcc supports that via its __attribute__(aligned()) pragma; and since we don't currently support int128 on non-gcc-workalike compilers, we shouldn't be losing any platform support this way. Although we could have just done pg_attribute_aligned(MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF) and called it a day, I did a little bit of extra work to make the code more portable than that: it will also support int128 on compilers without __attribute__(aligned()), if the native alignment of their 128-bit-int type is no more than that of int64. Add a regression test case that exercises the one known instance of the problem, in parallel aggregation over a bigint column. This will need to be back-patched, along with the preparatory commit 91aec93e6. But let's see what the buildfarm makes of it first. Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/20171110185747.31519.28038@wrigleys.postgresql.org
2017-11-14 21:03:55 +01:00
# define PG_INT128_TYPE to that typename, and define ALIGNOF_PG_INT128_TYPE
# as its alignment requirement.
#
# This currently only detects a GCC/clang extension, but support for other
# environments may be added in the future.
#
# For the moment we only test for support for 128bit math; support for
# 128bit literals and snprintf is not required.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_TYPE_128BIT_INT],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK([for __int128], [pgac_cv__128bit_int],
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([
/*
* We don't actually run this test, just link it to verify that any support
* functions needed for __int128 are present.
*
* These are globals to discourage the compiler from folding all the
* arithmetic tests down to compile-time constants. We do not have
* convenient support for 128bit literals at this point...
*/
__int128 a = 48828125;
__int128 b = 97656250;
],[
__int128 c,d;
a = (a << 12) + 1; /* 200000000001 */
b = (b << 12) + 5; /* 400000000005 */
/* try the most relevant arithmetic ops */
c = a * b;
d = (c + b) / b;
/* must use the results, else compiler may optimize arithmetic away */
if (d != a+1)
return 1;
])],
[pgac_cv__128bit_int=yes],
[pgac_cv__128bit_int=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__128bit_int" = xyes ; then
# Use of non-default alignment with __int128 tickles bugs in some compilers.
# If not cross-compiling, we can test for bugs and disable use of __int128
# with buggy compilers. If cross-compiling, hope for the best.
# https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83925
AC_CACHE_CHECK([for __int128 alignment bug], [pgac_cv__128bit_int_bug],
[AC_RUN_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([
/* This must match the corresponding code in c.h: */
#if defined(__GNUC__) || defined(__SUNPRO_C) || defined(__IBMC__)
#define pg_attribute_aligned(a) __attribute__((aligned(a)))
#elif defined(_MSC_VER)
#define pg_attribute_aligned(a) __declspec(align(a))
#endif
typedef __int128 int128a
#if defined(pg_attribute_aligned)
pg_attribute_aligned(8)
#endif
;
int128a holder;
void pass_by_val(void *buffer, int128a par) { holder = par; }
],[
long int i64 = 97656225L << 12;
int128a q;
pass_by_val(main, (int128a) i64);
q = (int128a) i64;
if (q != holder)
return 1;
])],
[pgac_cv__128bit_int_bug=ok],
[pgac_cv__128bit_int_bug=broken],
[pgac_cv__128bit_int_bug="assuming ok"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__128bit_int_bug" != xbroken ; then
AC_DEFINE(PG_INT128_TYPE, __int128, [Define to the name of a signed 128-bit integer type.])
AC_CHECK_ALIGNOF(PG_INT128_TYPE)
fi
fi])# PGAC_TYPE_128BIT_INT
# PGAC_C_STATIC_ASSERT
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
# --------------------
# Check if the C compiler understands _Static_assert(),
# and define HAVE__STATIC_ASSERT if so.
#
# We actually check the syntax ({ _Static_assert(...) }), because we need
# gcc-style compound expressions to be able to wrap the thing into macros.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_STATIC_ASSERT],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for _Static_assert, pgac_cv__static_assert,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[({ _Static_assert(1, "foo"); })])],
[pgac_cv__static_assert=yes],
[pgac_cv__static_assert=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__static_assert" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE__STATIC_ASSERT, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands _Static_assert.])
fi])# PGAC_C_STATIC_ASSERT
# PGAC_C_TYPEOF
# -------------
# Check if the C compiler understands typeof or a variant. Define
# HAVE_TYPEOF if so, and define 'typeof' to the actual key word.
#
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_TYPEOF],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for typeof, pgac_cv_c_typeof,
[pgac_cv_c_typeof=no
for pgac_kw in typeof __typeof__ decltype; do
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[int x = 0;
$pgac_kw(x) y;
y = x;
return y;])],
[pgac_cv_c_typeof=$pgac_kw])
test "$pgac_cv_c_typeof" != no && break
done])
if test "$pgac_cv_c_typeof" != no; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_TYPEOF, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands `typeof' or something similar.])
if test "$pgac_cv_c_typeof" != typeof; then
2017-03-29 04:28:56 +02:00
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(typeof, $pgac_cv_c_typeof, [Define to how the compiler spells `typeof'.])
fi
fi])# PGAC_C_TYPEOF
# PGAC_C_TYPES_COMPATIBLE
# -----------------------
# Check if the C compiler understands __builtin_types_compatible_p,
# and define HAVE__BUILTIN_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P if so.
#
# We check usage with __typeof__, though it's unlikely any compiler would
# have the former and not the latter.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_TYPES_COMPATIBLE],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for __builtin_types_compatible_p, pgac_cv__types_compatible,
[AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[[ int x; static int y[__builtin_types_compatible_p(__typeof__(x), int)]; ]])],
[pgac_cv__types_compatible=yes],
[pgac_cv__types_compatible=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__types_compatible" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE__BUILTIN_TYPES_COMPATIBLE_P, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands __builtin_types_compatible_p.])
fi])# PGAC_C_TYPES_COMPATIBLE
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_CONSTANT_P
# -------------------------
# Check if the C compiler understands __builtin_constant_p(),
# and define HAVE__BUILTIN_CONSTANT_P if so.
# We need __builtin_constant_p("string literal") to be true, but some older
# compilers don't think that, so test for that case explicitly.
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_BUILTIN_CONSTANT_P],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for __builtin_constant_p, pgac_cv__builtin_constant_p,
[AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_SOURCE(
[[static int x;
static int y[__builtin_constant_p(x) ? x : 1];
static int z[__builtin_constant_p("string literal") ? 1 : x];
]]
)],
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
[pgac_cv__builtin_constant_p=yes],
[pgac_cv__builtin_constant_p=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__builtin_constant_p" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE__BUILTIN_CONSTANT_P, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands __builtin_constant_p.])
fi])# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_CONSTANT_P
# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW
# --------------------------
# Check if the C compiler understands __builtin_$op_overflow(),
# and define HAVE__BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW if so.
#
# Check for the most complicated case, 64 bit multiplication, as a
# proxy for all of the operations. To detect the case where the compiler
# knows the function but library support is missing, we must link not just
# compile, and store the results in global variables so the compiler doesn't
# optimize away the call.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for __builtin_mul_overflow, pgac_cv__builtin_op_overflow,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([
PG_INT64_TYPE a = 1;
PG_INT64_TYPE b = 1;
PG_INT64_TYPE result;
int oflo;
],
[oflo = __builtin_mul_overflow(a, b, &result);])],
[pgac_cv__builtin_op_overflow=yes],
[pgac_cv__builtin_op_overflow=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__builtin_op_overflow" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE__BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands __builtin_$op_overflow.])
fi])# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_OP_OVERFLOW
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE
# --------------------------
# Check if the C compiler understands __builtin_unreachable(),
# and define HAVE__BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE if so.
#
# NB: Don't get the idea of putting a for(;;); or such before the
# __builtin_unreachable() call. Some compilers would remove it before linking
# and only a warning instead of an error would be produced.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for __builtin_unreachable, pgac_cv__builtin_unreachable,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[__builtin_unreachable();])],
Improve handling of ereport(ERROR) and elog(ERROR). In commit 71450d7fd6c7cf7b3e38ac56e363bff6a681973c, we added code to inform suitably-intelligent compilers that ereport() doesn't return if the elevel is ERROR or higher. This patch extends that to elog(), and also fixes a double-evaluation hazard that the previous commit created in ereport(), as well as reducing the emitted code size. The elog() improvement requires the compiler to support __VA_ARGS__, which should be available in just about anything nowadays since it's required by C99. But our minimum language baseline is still C89, so add a configure test for that. The previous commit assumed that ereport's elevel could be evaluated twice, which isn't terribly safe --- there are already counterexamples in xlog.c. On compilers that have __builtin_constant_p, we can use that to protect the second test, since there's no possible optimization gain if the compiler doesn't know the value of elevel. Otherwise, use a local variable inside the macros to prevent double evaluation. The local-variable solution is inferior because (a) it leads to useless code being emitted when elevel isn't constant, and (b) it increases the optimization level needed for the compiler to recognize that subsequent code is unreachable. But it seems better than not teaching non-gcc compilers about unreachability at all. Lastly, if the compiler has __builtin_unreachable(), we can use that instead of abort(), resulting in a noticeable code savings since no function call is actually emitted. However, it seems wise to do this only in non-assert builds. In an assert build, continue to use abort(), so that the behavior will be predictable and debuggable if the "impossible" happens. These changes involve making the ereport and elog macros emit do-while statement blocks not just expressions, which forces small changes in a few call sites. Andres Freund, Tom Lane, Heikki Linnakangas
2013-01-14 00:39:20 +01:00
[pgac_cv__builtin_unreachable=yes],
[pgac_cv__builtin_unreachable=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv__builtin_unreachable" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE__BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands __builtin_unreachable.])
fi])# PGAC_C_BUILTIN_UNREACHABLE
# PGAC_C_COMPUTED_GOTO
# --------------------
# Check if the C compiler knows computed gotos (gcc extension, also
# available in at least clang). If so, define HAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO.
#
# Checking whether computed gotos are supported syntax-wise ought to
# be enough, as the syntax is otherwise illegal.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_C_COMPUTED_GOTO],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for computed goto support, pgac_cv_computed_goto,
[AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
[[void *labeladdrs[] = {&&my_label};
goto *labeladdrs[0];
my_label:
return 1;
]])],
[pgac_cv_computed_goto=yes],
[pgac_cv_computed_goto=no])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_computed_goto" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_COMPUTED_GOTO, 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler handles computed gotos.])
fi])# PGAC_C_COMPUTED_GOTO
Make use of compiler builtins and/or assembly for CLZ, CTZ, POPCNT. Test for the compiler builtins __builtin_clz, __builtin_ctz, and __builtin_popcount, and make use of these in preference to handwritten C code if they're available. Create src/port infrastructure for "leftmost one", "rightmost one", and "popcount" so as to centralize these decisions. On x86_64, __builtin_popcount generally won't make use of the POPCNT opcode because that's not universally supported yet. Provide code that checks CPUID and then calls POPCNT via asm() if available. This requires indirecting through a function pointer, which is an annoying amount of overhead for a one-instruction operation, but it's probably not worth working harder than this for our current use-cases. I'm not sure we've found all the existing places that could profit from this new infrastructure; but we at least touched all the ones that used copied-and-pasted versions of the bitmapset.c code, and got rid of multiple copies of the associated constant arrays. While at it, replace c-compiler.m4's one-per-builtin-function macros with a single one that can handle all the cases we need to worry about so far. Also, because I'm paranoid, make those checks into AC_LINK checks rather than just AC_COMPILE; the former coding failed to verify that libgcc has support for the builtin, in cases where it's not inline code. David Rowley, Thomas Munro, Alvaro Herrera, Tom Lane Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAKJS1f9WTAGG1tPeJnD18hiQW5gAk59fQ6WK-vfdAKEHyRg2RA@mail.gmail.com
2019-02-16 05:22:27 +01:00
# PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC
# -----------------------
# This is similar to AC_CHECK_FUNCS(), except that it will work for compiler
# builtin functions, as that usually fails to.
# The first argument is the function name, eg [__builtin_clzl], and the
# second is its argument list, eg [unsigned long x]. The current coding
# works only for a single argument named x; we might generalize that later.
# It's assumed that the function's result type is coercible to int.
# On success, we define "HAVEfuncname" (there's usually more than enough
# underscores already, so we don't add another one).
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for $1, pgac_cv$1,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([
int
call$1($2)
{
return $1(x);
}], [])],
[pgac_cv$1=yes],
[pgac_cv$1=no])])
if test x"${pgac_cv$1}" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(AS_TR_CPP([HAVE$1]), 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands $1.])
fi])# PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC
# PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC_PTR
# -----------------------
# Like PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC, except that the function is assumed to
# return a pointer type, and the argument(s) should be given literally.
# This handles some cases that PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC doesn't.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC_PTR],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for $1, pgac_cv$1,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([
void *
call$1(void)
{
return $1($2);
}], [])],
[pgac_cv$1=yes],
[pgac_cv$1=no])])
if test x"${pgac_cv$1}" = xyes ; then
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED(AS_TR_CPP([HAVE$1]), 1,
[Define to 1 if your compiler understands $1.])
fi])# PGAC_CHECK_BUILTIN_FUNC_PTR
# PGAC_PROG_VARCC_VARFLAGS_OPT
# ----------------------------
# Given a compiler, variable name and a string, check if the compiler
# supports the string as a command-line option. If it does, add the
# string to the given variable.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_VARCC_VARFLAGS_OPT],
[define([Ac_cachevar], [AS_TR_SH([pgac_cv_prog_$1_cflags_$3])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether ${$1} supports $3, for $2], [Ac_cachevar],
[pgac_save_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS
pgac_save_CC=$CC
CC=${$1}
CFLAGS="${$2} $3"
ac_save_c_werror_flag=$ac_c_werror_flag
ac_c_werror_flag=yes
_AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM()],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no])
ac_c_werror_flag=$ac_save_c_werror_flag
CFLAGS="$pgac_save_CFLAGS"
CC="$pgac_save_CC"])
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = x"yes"; then
$2="${$2} $3"
fi
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_PROG_VARCC_VARFLAGS_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT
# -----------------------
# Given a string, check if the compiler supports the string as a
# command-line option. If it does, add the string to CFLAGS.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT], [
PGAC_PROG_VARCC_VARFLAGS_OPT(CC, CFLAGS, $1)
])# PGAC_PROG_CC_CFLAGS_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT
# --------------------
# Given a variable name and a string, check if the compiler supports
# the string as a command-line option. If it does, add the string to
# the given variable.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT],
[PGAC_PROG_VARCC_VARFLAGS_OPT(CC, $1, $2)
2016-04-02 03:53:10 +02:00
])# PGAC_PROG_CC_VAR_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_VARCXX_VARFLAGS_OPT
# -----------------------------
# Given a compiler, variable name and a string, check if the compiler
# supports the string as a command-line option. If it does, add the
# string to the given variable.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_VARCXX_VARFLAGS_OPT],
[define([Ac_cachevar], [AS_TR_SH([pgac_cv_prog_$1_cxxflags_$3])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether ${$1} supports $3, for $2], [Ac_cachevar],
[pgac_save_CXXFLAGS=$CXXFLAGS
pgac_save_CXX=$CXX
CXX=${$1}
CXXFLAGS="${$2} $3"
ac_save_cxx_werror_flag=$ac_cxx_werror_flag
ac_cxx_werror_flag=yes
AC_LANG_PUSH(C++)
_AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM()],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no])
AC_LANG_POP([])
ac_cxx_werror_flag=$ac_save_cxx_werror_flag
CXXFLAGS="$pgac_save_CXXFLAGS"
CXX="$pgac_save_CXX"])
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = x"yes"; then
$2="${$2} $3"
fi
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_PROG_VARCXX_VARFLAGS_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_CXX_CFLAGS_OPT
# ------------------------
# Given a string, check if the compiler supports the string as a
# command-line option. If it does, add the string to CXXFLAGS.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_CXX_CFLAGS_OPT],
[PGAC_PROG_VARCXX_VARFLAGS_OPT(CXX, CXXFLAGS, $1)
])# PGAC_PROG_CXX_CFLAGS_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_CC_LD_VARFLAGS_OPT
# ------------------------
# Given a string, check if the compiler supports the string as a
# command-line option. If it does, add to the given variable.
# For reasons you'd really rather not know about, this checks whether
# you can link to a particular function, not just whether you can link.
# In fact, we must actually check that the resulting program runs :-(
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_CC_LD_VARFLAGS_OPT],
[define([Ac_cachevar], [AS_TR_SH([pgac_cv_prog_cc_$1_$2])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether $CC supports $2, for $1], [Ac_cachevar],
[pgac_save_LDFLAGS=$LDFLAGS
LDFLAGS="$pgac_save_LDFLAGS $2"
AC_RUN_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([extern void $3 (); void (*fptr) () = $3;],[])],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no],
[Ac_cachevar="assuming no"])
LDFLAGS="$pgac_save_LDFLAGS"])
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = x"yes"; then
$1="${$1} $2"
fi
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_PROG_CC_LD_VARFLAGS_OPT
# PGAC_PROG_CC_LDFLAGS_OPT
# ------------------------
# Convenience wrapper around PGAC_PROG_CC_LD_VARFLAGS_OPT that adds to
# LDFLAGS.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_PROG_CC_LDFLAGS_OPT],
[PGAC_PROG_CC_LD_VARFLAGS_OPT(LDFLAGS, [$1], [$2])
])# PGAC_PROG_CC_LDFLAGS_OPT
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS
# ----------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __sync_lock_test_and_set(char),
# and define HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS
#
# NB: There are platforms where test_and_set is available but compare_and_swap
# is not, so test this separately.
# NB: Some platforms only do 32bit tas, others only do 8bit tas. Test both.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __sync char locking functions, pgac_cv_gcc_sync_char_tas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[char lock = 0;
__sync_lock_test_and_set(&lock, 1);
__sync_lock_release(&lock);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_char_tas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_char_tas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_sync_char_tas" = x"yes"; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __sync_lock_test_and_set(char *) and friends.])
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_CHAR_TAS
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS
# -----------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __sync_lock_test_and_set(),
# and define HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __sync int32 locking functions, pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_tas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[int lock = 0;
__sync_lock_test_and_set(&lock, 1);
__sync_lock_release(&lock);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_tas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_tas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_tas" = x"yes"; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __sync_lock_test_and_set(int *) and friends.])
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_TAS
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_CAS
# -----------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __sync_compare_and_swap() for 32bit
# types, and define HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_CAS if so.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_CAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __sync int32 atomic operations, pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_cas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[int val = 0;
__sync_val_compare_and_swap(&val, 0, 37);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_cas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_cas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int32_cas" = x"yes"; then
2018-07-10 11:14:53 +02:00
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_CAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __sync_val_compare_and_swap(int *, int, int).])
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT32_CAS
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT64_CAS
# -----------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __sync_compare_and_swap() for 64bit
# types, and define HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT64_CAS if so.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT64_CAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __sync int64 atomic operations, pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int64_cas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[PG_INT64_TYPE lock = 0;
__sync_val_compare_and_swap(&lock, 0, (PG_INT64_TYPE) 37);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int64_cas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int64_cas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_sync_int64_cas" = x"yes"; then
2018-07-10 11:14:53 +02:00
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT64_CAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __sync_val_compare_and_swap(int64 *, int64, int64).])
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__SYNC_INT64_CAS
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT32_CAS
# -------------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __atomic_compare_exchange_n() for 32bit
# types, and define HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT32_CAS if so.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT32_CAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __atomic int32 atomic operations, pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[int val = 0;
int expect = 0;
__atomic_compare_exchange_n(&val, &expect, 37, 0, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int32_cas" = x"yes"; then
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT32_CAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __atomic_compare_exchange_n(int *, int *, int).])
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT32_CAS
# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT64_CAS
# -------------------------------
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
# Check if the C compiler understands __atomic_compare_exchange_n() for 64bit
# types, and define HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT64_CAS if so.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT64_CAS],
[AC_CACHE_CHECK(for builtin __atomic int64 atomic operations, pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int64_cas,
[AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[PG_INT64_TYPE val = 0;
PG_INT64_TYPE expect = 0;
__atomic_compare_exchange_n(&val, &expect, 37, 0, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST, __ATOMIC_RELAXED);])],
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
[pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int64_cas="yes"],
[pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int64_cas="no"])])
if test x"$pgac_cv_gcc_atomic_int64_cas" = x"yes"; then
2018-07-04 22:13:16 +02:00
AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT64_CAS, 1, [Define to 1 if you have __atomic_compare_exchange_n(int64 *, int64 *, int64).])
Add a basic atomic ops API abstracting away platform/architecture details. Several upcoming performance/scalability improvements require atomic operations. This new API avoids the need to splatter compiler and architecture dependent code over all the locations employing atomic ops. For several of the potential usages it'd be problematic to maintain both, a atomics using implementation and one using spinlocks or similar. In all likelihood one of the implementations would not get tested regularly under concurrency. To avoid that scenario the new API provides a automatic fallback of atomic operations to spinlocks. All properties of atomic operations are maintained. This fallback - obviously - isn't as fast as just using atomic ops, but it's not bad either. For one of the future users the atomics ontop spinlocks implementation was actually slightly faster than the old purely spinlock using implementation. That's important because it reduces the fear of regressing older platforms when improving the scalability for new ones. The API, loosely modeled after the C11 atomics support, currently provides 'atomic flags' and 32 bit unsigned integers. If the platform efficiently supports atomic 64 bit unsigned integers those are also provided. To implement atomics support for a platform/architecture/compiler for a type of atomics 32bit compare and exchange needs to be implemented. If available and more efficient native support for flags, 32 bit atomic addition, and corresponding 64 bit operations may also be provided. Additional useful atomic operations are implemented generically ontop of these. The implementation for various versions of gcc, msvc and sun studio have been tested. Additional existing stub implementations for * Intel icc * HUPX acc * IBM xlc are included but have never been tested. These will likely require fixes based on buildfarm and user feedback. As atomic operations also require barriers for some operations the existing barrier support has been moved into the atomics code. Author: Andres Freund with contributions from Oskari Saarenmaa Reviewed-By: Amit Kapila, Robert Haas, Heikki Linnakangas and Álvaro Herrera Discussion: CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com, 20131015123303.GH5300@awork2.anarazel.de, 20131028205522.GI20248@awork2.anarazel.de
2014-09-25 23:49:05 +02:00
fi])# PGAC_HAVE_GCC__ATOMIC_INT64_CAS
# PGAC_SSE42_CRC32_INTRINSICS
# ---------------------------
# Check if the compiler supports the x86 CRC instructions added in SSE 4.2,
# using the _mm_crc32_u8 and _mm_crc32_u32 intrinsic functions. (We don't
# test the 8-byte variant, _mm_crc32_u64, but it is assumed to be present if
# the other ones are, on x86-64 platforms)
#
# An optional compiler flag can be passed as argument (e.g. -msse4.2). If the
# intrinsics are supported, sets pgac_sse42_crc32_intrinsics, and CFLAGS_CRC.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_SSE42_CRC32_INTRINSICS],
[define([Ac_cachevar], [AS_TR_SH([pgac_cv_sse42_crc32_intrinsics_$1])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([for _mm_crc32_u8 and _mm_crc32_u32 with CFLAGS=$1], [Ac_cachevar],
[pgac_save_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS
CFLAGS="$pgac_save_CFLAGS $1"
AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include <nmmintrin.h>],
[unsigned int crc = 0;
crc = _mm_crc32_u8(crc, 0);
crc = _mm_crc32_u32(crc, 0);
/* return computed value, to prevent the above being optimized away */
return crc == 0;])],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no])
CFLAGS="$pgac_save_CFLAGS"])
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = x"yes"; then
CFLAGS_CRC="$1"
pgac_sse42_crc32_intrinsics=yes
fi
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_SSE42_CRC32_INTRINSICS
# PGAC_ARMV8_CRC32C_INTRINSICS
# ----------------------------
# Check if the compiler supports the CRC32C instructions using the __crc32cb,
# __crc32ch, __crc32cw, and __crc32cd intrinsic functions. These instructions
# were first introduced in ARMv8 in the optional CRC Extension, and became
# mandatory in ARMv8.1.
#
# An optional compiler flag can be passed as argument (e.g.
# -march=armv8-a+crc). If the intrinsics are supported, sets
# pgac_armv8_crc32c_intrinsics, and CFLAGS_CRC.
AC_DEFUN([PGAC_ARMV8_CRC32C_INTRINSICS],
[define([Ac_cachevar], [AS_TR_SH([pgac_cv_armv8_crc32c_intrinsics_$1])])dnl
AC_CACHE_CHECK([for __crc32cb, __crc32ch, __crc32cw, and __crc32cd with CFLAGS=$1], [Ac_cachevar],
[pgac_save_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS
CFLAGS="$pgac_save_CFLAGS $1"
AC_LINK_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include <arm_acle.h>],
[unsigned int crc = 0;
crc = __crc32cb(crc, 0);
crc = __crc32ch(crc, 0);
crc = __crc32cw(crc, 0);
crc = __crc32cd(crc, 0);
/* return computed value, to prevent the above being optimized away */
return crc == 0;])],
[Ac_cachevar=yes],
[Ac_cachevar=no])
CFLAGS="$pgac_save_CFLAGS"])
if test x"$Ac_cachevar" = x"yes"; then
CFLAGS_CRC="$1"
pgac_armv8_crc32c_intrinsics=yes
fi
undefine([Ac_cachevar])dnl
])# PGAC_ARMV8_CRC32C_INTRINSICS