http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--- Comment #21 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #19 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #18)
> sparc-sun-solaris2.10 is a primary arch, making P1 for now. As sparc
> implements
> the hook Joseph mentions is this merely a testsuite issue (sparc being
> "slo
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 32056
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=32056&action=edit
sampling of one of the runs.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #16 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> Even that seems to require ifunc support, which isn't supported on Solaris
> even with gld.
AFAICR ifunc is not supported on darwin.
I have posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-02/m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
> > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
> [...]
> > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system
> > does
> > not ex
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #13)
[...]
> so the open question is whether there's a fault in the fall-back solution -
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #13 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
[...]
> Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system
> does
> not exhibit the slow-down?
no, I see it both on unloa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de from comment #11)
> > --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> > (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
> >> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #11 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
> (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
>> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2:
>
> do you use the default m
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #9)
> I see the same issue on some Solaris 10/SPARC systems on UltraSPARC T2:
do you use the default mutex-based implementation for lib atomic?
(I suspect that this is whe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|x86_64-apple-darwin13 |x86_64-apple-darwin13,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 31459
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31459&action=edit
test without the complex instances
The running time fluctuates between 1.6 and 7.5s on an unloaded machine
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
Created attachment 31458
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31458&action=edit
reduced test case
c11-atomic-exec_5.c reduced to the test of complex_long_double_add_overflow
only. It tak
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres ---
> on x86_64-apple-darwin12. Can someone confirm that we have both support
> for floating-point exceptions and the required hook on darwin?
I cannot answer these questions.
> If so, I suspect we are
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth ---
Added preprocessed source and assembly file generated with...
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc49-4.9.0-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 31451
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31451&action=edit
preprocessed source for gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O0 on darwin12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #4 from Jack Howarth ---
Created attachment 31452
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31452&action=edit
assembly file for gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O0 on darwin12
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
--- Comment #2 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
For powerpc see: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-11/msg00131.html - the
failures indicate the architecture maintainers have not yet added this
hook.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
Summary|gcc.dg/atomic/c
21 matches
Mail list logo
