On 18/06/2019 14:20, Ser, Simon wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-18 at 13:27 +0100, Guillaume Tucker wrote:
>> Add conditional dependency on libatomic in order to be able to use the
>> __atomic_* functions instead of the older __sync_* ones. The
>> libatomic library is only needed when there aren't any native support
>> on the current architecture, so a linker test is used for this
>> purpose. This enables atomic operations to be on a wider number of
>> architectures including MIPS.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Guillaume Tucker <guillaume.tucker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>
>> Notes:
>> v2: add linker test for libatomic
>> v3: use null_dep
>>
>> meson.build | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meson.build b/meson.build
>> index 6268c58d3634..118ad667ffb5 100644
>> --- a/meson.build
>> +++ b/meson.build
>> @@ -180,6 +180,20 @@ realtime = cc.find_library('rt')
>> dlsym = cc.find_library('dl')
>> zlib = cc.find_library('z')
>>
>> +if cc.links('''
>> +#include <stdint.h>
>> +int main(void) {
>> + uint32_t x32 = 0;
>> + uint64_t x64 = 0;
>> + __atomic_load_n(&x32, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
>> + __atomic_load_n(&x64, __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST);
>
> See my reply for v2. I've looked into this a little bit more and it
> looks like __atomic_* functions are a GCC implementation detail. OIn
> other words, the C11 standard [1] defines only atomic_* functions, and
> GCC implements them with __atomic_* builtins when the platform supports
> it, but other compilers might not expose those builtins and still
> support atomic_* functions without them. This also seems to be what [2]
> explains:
>
>> The first set of library functions are named __atomic_*. This set has
>> been “standardized” by GCC, and is described below. (See also GCC’s
>> documentation)
>
> (Notice the quotes around “standardized”, meaning they are a GCC
> extension)
Quite, and while the stdatomic.h API is part of the C11 standard,
libatomic is part of GCC. So this test is to determine whether
linking against GCC's libatomic.so is needed for its __atomic_*
fallback implementation.
It raises the question of what to do with other compilers, but
igt has other build errors with clang on mips at the moment.
With a quick search, it looks like its __atomic_* functions are
part of libclang.so for clang.
Maybe this test should only be used when the compiler name is
gcc? In practice it does work with both gcc and clang though, as
they both use the same naming convention for atomic built-ins.
Guillaume
> [1]: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1548.pdf
> [2]: https://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html
>
>> + return 0;
>> +}''', name : 'built-in atomics')
>> + libatomic = null_dep
>> +else
>> + libatomic = cc.find_library('atomic')
>> +endif
>> +
>> if cc.has_header('linux/kd.h')
>> config.set('HAVE_LINUX_KD_H', 1)
>> endif
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
