https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #15 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
that happened only once. and the problem did never ever repeat.
But my gut feeling is still that there is a race conditition.
Yes, I agree that the usage of Side_Effect_Finger
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #14 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Well,
that happened only once. and the problem did never ever repeat.
But my gut feeling is still that there is a race conditition.
However I have been recently working on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #6 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Eric,
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
ed@w-ed:~/gnu/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/ada/acats/tests/c7/c761007$ cat
c761007_0.adb
-- --
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #7 from Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org ---
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
There are already explicit delays in the test, so very likely not.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #8 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #7)
could it be that the Finalize procedure is missing some sort of spin lock?
There are already explicit delays in the test, so
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #9 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
Created attachment 32065
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32065action=edit
possible fix
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously not
guarantee.
But how about this, for a fix?
That can't be a fix, only a workaround hiding a potential issue.
Your patch is completely changing the semantic and purpose of
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #10 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com ---
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously not
guarantee.
But how about this, for a fix?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #11 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to char...@adacore.com from comment #10)
well, I don't know if the Finalize method are supposed
to be called in a sequential manner, which GNAT does obviously
What is the test supposed to do?
Looks at the top of c761007.a, you'll find answers to this question.
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added to the
unmodified test case?
Sorry, I'm not following you here, I do not know which delay you would
add where (and why).
Arno
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #12 from charlet at adacore dot com charlet at adacore dot com ---
What is the test supposed to do?
Looks at the top of c761007.a, you'll find answers to this question.
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #13 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
(In reply to char...@adacore.com from comment #12)
could you explain, why the test fails when the delay is added to the
unmodified test case?
Sorry, I'm not following
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #2 from Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger at hotmail dot de ---
it's a real hardware (Altera CyloneV SoC Eva-Board)
with dual core ARMv7
running linux and eglibc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #3 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
This passes for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc trunk/4.8/4.7, on real HW
(Kirkwood), glibc-2.17, linux-3.13 kernel.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
Eric Botcazou ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60078
--- Comment #5 from Mikael Pettersson mikpelinux at gmail dot com ---
(In reply to Eric Botcazou from comment #4)
This passes for me on armv5tel-linux-gnueabi with gcc trunk/4.8/4.7, on real
HW (Kirkwood), glibc-2.17, linux-3.13 kernel.
17 matches
Mail list logo
