http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
Bug #: 54238
Summary: If possible, TRANSFER should use assignment instead of
MEMCPY
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54238
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
06:15:43 UTC ---
Though the memcpy does get optimized to a VCE:
addr.9_4 = (integer(kind=8)) ivtmp.29_28;
D.1913_24 = VIEW_CONVERT_EXPRvoid *(addr.9_4);
So it might not
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50167
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||glisse at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53942
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
07:35:11 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 07:35:03 2012
New Revision: 190338
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190338
Log:
Backported from trunk
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54237
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21485
--- Comment #53 from wbrana wbrana at gmail dot com 2012-08-13 08:26:13 UTC
---
It seems it was improved.
4.8 20120806
NUMERIC SORT: 1543.7 : 39.59 : 13.00
4.8 20120813
NUMERIC SORT: 2007.8
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51358
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
08:55:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
It would not be helpful, systemtap would then see no data (just not wrong
data).
Also at that time location list will need
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54232
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||x86_64-*-*,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
08:59:18 UTC ---
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o -flto
then the link step will use -mavx -msse2, that is,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
09:29:33 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Mon Aug 13 09:29:28 2012
New Revision: 190339
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190339
Log:
2012-08-13 Richard
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #9 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13 09:44:51
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o -flto
then the link step will use
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #10 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
09:53:32 UTC ---
Another test:
$ cat main_avx.c
#define BZERO bzero_avx
#pragma GCC target (avx)
#include main.c
$ cat main_sse2.c
#define BZERO bzero_sse2
#pragma GCC target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #11 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
10:12:48 UTC ---
Attaching __attribute__((target(xxx))) to the function does help.
It generates the following with the my_bzero function from comment 2:
02e0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
Bug #: 54239
Summary: Not able to generate prefetch (prefetch read)
instruction using -m3dnow or -mprfchw
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53495
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54049
Stefan Sørensen stefan at astylos dot dk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53495
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
10:55:39 UTC ---
*** Bug 53411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Schmidt bernds at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
11:07:27 UTC ---
If the call to delete_trivially_dead_insns is supposed to eliminate only
pre-existing dead insns, then just moving it to the beginning of IRA fixes this
bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53411
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vmakarov at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54112
--- Comment #4 from Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13 11:55:04
UTC ---
Author: glisse
Date: Mon Aug 13 11:55:00 2012
New Revision: 190340
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190340
Log:
2012-08-13 Marc Glisse
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54112
Marc Glisse glisse at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #12 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
11:58:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
(In reply to comment #8)
If you do something like
gcc -c t1.c -mavx -flto
gcc -c t2.c -msse2 -flto
gcc t1.o t2.o
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54231
--- Comment #13 from Thiago Macieira thiago at kde dot org 2012-08-13
12:13:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Yes, there are similar option-related bugs for this. Note somebody needs
to sit down and document the desired semantics of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||izamyatin at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
Bug #: 54240
Summary: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly
after r189366
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Bug #: 54241
Summary: Routine hoist_adjacent_loads does not work properly
after r189366
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:35:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
I see following in report for x86:
FAIL: gcc.dg/guality/pr54200.c -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin
-fno-fat-lto-objects line
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54241
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:39:10 UTC ---
*** Bug 54241 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53968
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
12:40:04 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 12:39:54 2012
New Revision: 190342
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190342
Log:
PR c/53968
* tree.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53968
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||wschmidt at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54201
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54200
--- Comment #11 from Igor Zamyatin izamyatin at gmail dot com 2012-08-13
12:46:48 UTC ---
Right! Sorry for the noise...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
Bug #: 54242
Summary: [4.8 Regression] Testsuite failures
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54210
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
13:21:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Mon Aug 13 13:21:41 2012
New Revision: 190345
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190345
Log:
PR driver/54210
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54242
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #2 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com
2012-08-13 13:51:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Both in 4.7 (which is before the prfchw changes) and 4.8 with -m32 -m3dnow and
-m32 -m3dnow -mno-sse I get prefetch +
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
13:58:40 UTC ---
But the Intel manual AFAIK doesn't talk about prefetch insn.
So, the -mprfchw switch needs to control solely the prefetchw instruction,
and there might be a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54232
--- Comment #3 from Rich Felker bugdal at aerifal dot cx 2012-08-13 13:59:17
UTC ---
I think the GOT is introduced too late to do any fancy ananlysis
on whether we need it or not.
This may be true, but if so, it's a highly suboptimal design
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:00:55 UTC ---
BTW, why do you care about the prefetch insn? Isn't it obsoleted by the SSE
ISA prefetches anyway (unlike prefetchw)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #8 from David Adler d.adler.s at gmail dot com 2012-08-13
14:09:16 UTC ---
Created attachment 28005
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28005
proposed changelog
I wasn't sure about the testcase file name, so I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know. I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that. Peculiar.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #3 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:14:59 UTC ---
Odd, I don't know. I'll have to go back and look at the tests when I get a
moment and investigate that. Peculiar.
--- Comment #4 from Michael
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #5 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:24:48 UTC ---
Well, I'm embarrassed. The tests I wrote for this functionality never got into
the test suite -- I apparently forgot to submit them with the patch --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
--- Comment #5 from Venkataramanan venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com
2012-08-13 14:33:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
BTW, why do you care about the prefetch insn? Isn't it obsoleted by the SSE
ISA prefetches anyway (unlike prefetchw)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
14:35:21 UTC ---
Perfect - thanks. I'll get it committed tonight.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
Bug #: 54243
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
(trying to compile errorneous code)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
Bug #: 54244
Summary: f951: internal compiler error: in
gfc_add_component_ref, at fortran/class.c:210
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53836
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54244
Tobias Burnus burnus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #23 from Richard Henderson rth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
15:51:37 UTC ---
On 08/12/2012 07:30 AM, danglin at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53823
--- Comment #22 from John David Anglin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
Bug #: 54245
Summary: [4.8 regression] incorrect optimisation
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246
Bug #: 54246
Summary: Bytemark FOURIER 54% slower in X32 chroot
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
Jakub Jelinek jakub at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54239
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
Ollie Wild aaw at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aaw at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54197
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54243
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54245
William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:56:55 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:56:50 2012
New Revision: 190356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190356
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:56:55 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:56:50 2012
New Revision: 190356
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190356
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
19:57:36 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Mon Aug 13 19:57:31 2012
New Revision: 190357
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190357
Log:
2012-08-13 David Adler
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54247
Bug #: 54247
Summary: OpenMP code fails at execution in AMD Interlagos
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54185
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54247
Bill Long longb at cray dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #7 from William J. Schmidt wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
20:39:59 UTC ---
Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
appear to have gone missing. I'll get one of our back-end specialists to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53836
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at redhat dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54240
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-13
21:59:33 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Something else is broken, too, as the optab handlers for cmov on powerpc64
appear to have gone missing. I'll get one of our
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #8 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-13
22:04:40 UTC ---
The following is a transcript of a test I just tried one of my systems where
Gary and I have observed this bug. The test appears to show that the gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #9 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-13
22:42:16 UTC ---
Following up on my previous experiment, I tried the same input with the xgcc
which is failing to build libdecnumber. If also fails with the 1-line test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #10 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-13
22:54:12 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Following up on my previous experiment, I tried the same input with the xgcc
which is failing to build libdecnumber. If also
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #11 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-13 23:00:57
UTC ---
It is possible that revision 189908 introduced the 'mcom' change.
Index: src/gcc/config/rs6000/rs6000.h
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31557
Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||PHHargrove at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
Andreas Schwab sch...@linux-m68k.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17108
Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||PHHargrove at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54142
--- Comment #13 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-14
00:01:08 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
Of course, if 'sldi' and 'slri' ARE supposed to be supported in common mode,
then this is a binutils bug.
I've confirmed that
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51233
--- Comment #2 from Matt Hargett matt at use dot net 2012-08-14 00:26:35 UTC
---
Okay. I filed this bug at your request last year because of your concerns that
some of the improvements seen with multiple iterations might be papering over
existing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31557
--- Comment #4 from Paul H. Hargrove PHHargrove at lbl dot gov 2012-08-14
00:31:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
FWIW, 4.8.0 20120809 w/ -O1 or higher is now using just 4 instructions instead
of 5. So, half way there.
.L.f:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53194
--- Comment #8 from eraman at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-08-14 00:51:15 UTC ---
Author: eraman
Date: Tue Aug 14 00:51:10 2012
New Revision: 190375
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=190375
Log:
2012-08-13 Easwaran Raman
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54246
H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bkoz at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-08-14
03:20:09 UTC ---
A GCC port is incorrect if it is issuing any kind of lock. GCC is only allowed
to issue a lock free sequence of some sort. If a lock is required, then a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Macleod amacleod at redhat dot com 2012-08-14
03:27:28 UTC ---
huh, somehow this got submitted before I finished. :-P
For libstdc++, the macros SHOULD use __atomic_always_lock_free() since they are
intended to be used
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Hans-Peter Nilsson hp at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||crowl at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54113
--- Comment #1 from eggert at gnu dot org 2012-08-14 04:08:17 UTC ---
In http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2012-08/msg00038.html Jim
Meyering reports that GCC 4.8.0 20120803 issues a different (but still bogus)
warning for this program.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20020
--- Comment #30 from Gary Funck gary at intrepid dot com 2012-08-14 04:24:54
UTC ---
Patch posted:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-08/msg00839.html
94 matches
Mail list logo
