[libcxx] r225280 - Obey [atomics.types.operations.req]/21 for GCC.

[Dan Albert]

Author: danalbert
Date: Tue Jan  6 12:39:37 2015
New Revision: 225280

URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=225280&view=rev
Log:
Obey [atomics.types.operations.req]/21 for GCC.

Summary:
Excerpt from [atomics.types.operations.req]/21:

> When only one memory_order argument is supplied, the value of
> success is order, and the value of failure is order except that a
> value of memory_order_acq_rel shall be replaced by the value
> memory_order_acquire and a value of memory_order_release shall be
> replaced by the value memory_order_relaxed.

Clean up some copy pasta while I'm here (someone added a return
statement to a void function).

Reviewers: EricWF, jroelofs, mclow.lists

Reviewed By: mclow.lists

Subscribers: cfe-commits

Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D6632

Added:
    libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/
    libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/
    libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/replace_failure_order.pass.cpp
Modified:
    libcxx/trunk/include/atomic

Modified: libcxx/trunk/include/atomic
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/include/atomic?rev=225280&r1=225279&r2=225280&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- libcxx/trunk/include/atomic (original)
+++ libcxx/trunk/include/atomic Tue Jan  6 12:39:37 2015
@@ -583,6 +583,16 @@ static inline constexpr int __to_gcc_ord
               __ATOMIC_CONSUME))));
 }
 
+static inline constexpr int __to_gcc_failure_order(memory_order __order) {
+  // Avoid switch statement to make this a constexpr.
+  return __order == memory_order_relaxed ? __ATOMIC_RELAXED:
+         (__order == memory_order_acquire ? __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE:
+          (__order == memory_order_release ? __ATOMIC_RELAXED:
+           (__order == memory_order_seq_cst ? __ATOMIC_SEQ_CST:
+            (__order == memory_order_acq_rel ? __ATOMIC_ACQUIRE:
+              __ATOMIC_CONSUME))));
+}
+
 } // namespace __gcc_atomic
 
 template <typename _Tp>
@@ -637,8 +647,8 @@ static inline void __c11_atomic_store(vo
 template <typename _Tp>
 static inline void __c11_atomic_store(_Atomic(_Tp)* __a,  _Tp __val,
                                       memory_order __order) {
-  return __atomic_store(&__a->__a_value, &__val,
-                        __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__order));
+  __atomic_store(&__a->__a_value, &__val,
+                 __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__order));
 }
 
 template <typename _Tp>
@@ -683,7 +693,7 @@ static inline bool __c11_atomic_compare_
   return __atomic_compare_exchange(&__a->__a_value, __expected, &__value,
                                    false,
                                    __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__success),
-                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__failure));
+                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_failure_order(__failure));
 }
 
 template <typename _Tp>
@@ -693,7 +703,7 @@ static inline bool __c11_atomic_compare_
   return __atomic_compare_exchange(&__a->__a_value, __expected, &__value,
                                    false,
                                    __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__success),
-                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__failure));
+                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_failure_order(__failure));
 }
 
 template <typename _Tp>
@@ -703,7 +713,7 @@ static inline bool __c11_atomic_compare_
   return __atomic_compare_exchange(&__a->__a_value, __expected, &__value,
                                    true,
                                    __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__success),
-                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__failure));
+                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_failure_order(__failure));
 }
 
 template <typename _Tp>
@@ -713,7 +723,7 @@ static inline bool __c11_atomic_compare_
   return __atomic_compare_exchange(&__a->__a_value, __expected, &__value,
                                    true,
                                    __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__success),
-                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_order(__failure));
+                                   __gcc_atomic::__to_gcc_failure_order(__failure));
 }
 
 template <typename _Tp>

Added: libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/replace_failure_order.pass.cpp
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/replace_failure_order.pass.cpp?rev=225280&view=auto
==============================================================================
--- libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/replace_failure_order.pass.cpp (added)
+++ libcxx/trunk/test/atomics/atomics.general/replace_failure_order.pass.cpp Tue Jan  6 12:39:37 2015
@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+//
+//                     The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
+//
+// This file is dual licensed under the MIT and the University of Illinois Open
+// Source Licenses. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
+//
+//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
+
+// This test verifies behavior specified by [atomics.types.operations.req]/21:
+//
+//     When only one memory_order argument is supplied, the value of success is
+//     order, and the value of failure is order except that a value of
+//     memory_order_acq_rel shall be replaced by the value memory_order_acquire
+//     and a value of memory_order_release shall be replaced by the value
+//     memory_order_relaxed.
+//
+// Clang's atomic intrinsics do this for us, but GCC's do not. We don't actually
+// have visibility to see what these memory orders are lowered to, but we can at
+// least check that they are lowered at all (otherwise there is a compile
+// failure with GCC).
+
+#include <atomic>
+
+int main() {
+    std::atomic<int> i;
+    volatile std::atomic<int> v;
+    int exp;
+
+    i.compare_exchange_weak(exp, 0, std::memory_order_acq_rel);
+    i.compare_exchange_weak(exp, 0, std::memory_order_release);
+    i.compare_exchange_strong(exp, 0, std::memory_order_acq_rel);
+    i.compare_exchange_strong(exp, 0, std::memory_order_release);
+
+    v.compare_exchange_weak(exp, 0, std::memory_order_acq_rel);
+    v.compare_exchange_weak(exp, 0, std::memory_order_release);
+    v.compare_exchange_strong(exp, 0, std::memory_order_acq_rel);
+    v.compare_exchange_strong(exp, 0, std::memory_order_release);
+
+    return 0;
+}