https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #11 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
On Wed, 3 Aug 2016, torvald at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> The difference is unfortunate, but C11 specifies that atomic_is_lock_free is
> *per object*. I suppose that any change there would
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||torvald at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #9 from Bin Fan bin.x.fan at oracle dot com ---
I verified this bug is fixed in 5.1.0. However, it is only fixed in g++, so now
in 5.1.0, gcc and g++ reports different result:
-bash-4.1$ cat is_lock_free.c
#include stdatomic.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #7 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: rth
Date: Thu Mar 26 18:31:11 2015
New Revision: 221701
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221701root=gccview=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/65033
* include/bits/atomic_base.h
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #5 from Bin Fan bin.x.fan at oracle dot com ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #3)
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #0)
2. g++ tries to make lock-free property per-type, but the libatomic.so
implementation does not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
Jason Merrill jason at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #6 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Bin Fan from comment #5)
So after the fix, atomic_is_lock_free will always return 0 for
size=3,align=1 atomic struct objects?
Yes.
I understand currently libatomic
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
See PR54005 for some of the history.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65033
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Aren't pointers in this case lock free?
11 matches
Mail list logo
