https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=122172
--- Comment #28 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #27) > There were still (22-11=)11 regressions compared to r16-3809 for cris-elf at > r16-4373-g385984f555 (still at r16-4386-g5b57da59c12e69). I'll open a > separate PR for: > g++.sum g++-dg-lto-devirt-2-01.exe > g++.sum g++.dg/ipa/devirt-2.C > but these 9 seem attributable to the same r16-3810 commit: > libstdc++.sum 24_iterators/reverse_iterator/100639.cc > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/1.cc > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/2.cc > libstdc++.sum 27_io/print/3.cc > libstdc++.sum 29_atomics/atomic_ref/requirements.cc > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/93267.cc > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/96042.cc > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/iota/size.cc > libstdc++.sum std/ranges/subrange/96042.cc > All but one are compilation or linking errors for a missing funlockfile > function (some of the errors are at compilation stage, others for linking > state). Those are all new in r16-4350-g8bd872f1ea7414 so unrelated to the _Atomic_word stuff. > The atomic one is > /gccobj/cris-elf/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h:1555: \ > error: static assertion failed: atomic operations on volatile T must be > lock-free That's Bug 122267 > Sorry, but I think I have to re-open this one. > > I did reply to the posted patch, that there were no regressions compared to > a patch concocted of the snippets in this PR, but was not regression-free > compared to r16-3809. It was "only" a vast improvement. I think they're two new regressions from two separate commits, unrelated to this one.
