Unordered is strictly weaker than monotonic, so if the latter doesn't have any
barriers then the former certainly shouldn't.
rdar://problem/16548260
llvm-svn: 209901
Swift cores implement store barriers that are stronger than the ARM
specification but weaker than general barriers. They are, in fact, just about
enough to provide the ordering needed for atomic operations with release
semantics.
This patch makes use of that quirk.
llvm-svn: 185527
Turns out I'd misread the architecture reference manual and thought
that was a load/store-store barrier, when it's not.
Thanks for pointing it out Eli!
llvm-svn: 185356
I believe the full "dmb ish" barrier is not required to guarantee release
semantics for atomic operations. The weaker "dmb ishst" prevents previous
operations being reordered with a store executed afterwards, which is enough.
A key point to note (fortunately already correct) is that this barrier alone is
*insufficient* for sequential consistency, no matter how liberally placed.
llvm-svn: 185339
should expand ATOMIC_CMP_SWAP nodes the same way that it does for ATOMIC_SWAP.
Since ATOMIC_LOADs on some targets (e.g. older ARM variants) get legalized to
ATOMIC_CMP_SWAPs, the missing case had been causing i64 atomic loads to crash
during isel.
<rdar://problem/14074644>
llvm-svn: 185186
(The fix for the related failures on x86 is going to be nastier because we actually need Acquire memoperands attached to the atomic load instrs, etc.)
llvm-svn: 139221
I don't really like the patterns, but I'm having trouble coming up with a
better way to handle them.
I plan on making other targets use the same legalization
ARM-without-memory-barriers is using... it's not especially efficient, but
if anyone cares, it's not that hard to fix for a given target if there's
some better lowering.
llvm-svn: 138621
Tim Northover