https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #14 from CVS Commits ---
The releases/gcc-9 branch has been updated by Thomas Kथघnig
:
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c080a6fb6f0cf402affc287fc600c189980cfb2d
commit r9-8264-gc080a6fb6f0cf402affc287fc600c189980cfb2d
Author: Thomas König
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #13 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Thomas Kथघnig :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:3fe1910509e32d611b3a7b8503502103bc53b5e4
commit r10-6710-g3fe1910509e32d611b3a7b8503502103bc53b5e4
Author: Thomas König
Date:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #12 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran the test with the patch on several systems that had previously seen a lot
of failures. Even after running it several hundred thousand times there were
no failures seen.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Attachment #47800|0 |1
is obsolete|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #10 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I ran the test 200,000 times on the same systems as before (p7 BE, p8 BE, 2
different p8 LE, and 2 different p9 LE) and all but one of them had at least 1
failure. One had 172. It looks like it
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I just tried the patch and am still seeing failures on at least some systems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #8 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
While trying to figure out what was going on I tried the original test on
several different machines including multiple power 8s and power 9s and it
eventually would fail on any of them.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #7 from Thomas Koenig ---
Hi Jerry,
this is without Janne's patch (which, as far as I see, concerns
handling I/O when the threads have already started).
Regarding testing: I could not get the original test case to fail
on gcc135, a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #6 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Forgot to mention. Did you test with or without Janne's patch here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2020-01/msg00158.html
It could be related or influence this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #5 from Jerry DeLisle ---
(In reply to Thomas Koenig from comment #4)
> Created attachment 47800 [details]
> Possible fix
>
> Here is something that Nicolas and I came up with. The theory is that
> pthread_cond_wait can get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #4 from Thomas Koenig ---
Created attachment 47800
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=47800=edit
Possible fix
Here is something that Nicolas and I came up with. The theory is that
pthread_cond_wait can get a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
--- Comment #3 from Thomas Koenig ---
Update: I am not convinced that the error message by helgrind is correct.
I have been able to reproduce the error in the meantime, by running
the test case with
#! /bin/sh
set -e
while true
do
for a in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Thomas Koenig changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Jerry DeLisle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93599
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Target Milestone|---
16 matches
Mail list logo
