https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #12 from Thomas Koenig ---
Correction... the patch does not work with a simple
example such as
program main
!$OMP PARALLEL NUM_THREADS(4)
print *,"Hello, world"
!$OMP END PARALLEL
end program main
Some more digging to do...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 42250
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42250&action=edit
Proposed patch
This patch is an attempt at getting rid of the lock-order
inversion. It seems to do the right
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #10 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Could this still be fixed / filtered out in the ThreadSanitizer somehow?
Should it be moved to the sanitizer component?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|INVALID
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #8 from Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de ---
Could this still be fixed / filtered out in the ThreadSanitizer somehow?
Otherwise the problem persists that you get huge amounts of false positives
with gfortran.
(I'm sorry, but I d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Koeni
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #5 from Dominique
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Melven.Roehrig-Zoellner at DLR dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Melven.Roehrig-Zoe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
--- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> but why do set the status on waiting ? Is there any question implied ?
Yes. In a perfect world, someone else would have to confirm it. In GCC land,
you can change the status to NEW if you still see
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Joost VandeVondele changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66756
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
13 matches
Mail list logo