> This should be fixed now. I rewrote the test to check the padding byte
> directly, instead of inspecting a copy of it which might not preserve
> the padding bits.
Great, thanks!
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > The test was only failing for me with -m32 (and not -m64), so I didn't
> > notice until now. That probably means we should make the test fail more
> > reliably if the padding isn't being cleared.
>
> The tests fail randomly for me on
> Do those loads still get scalarized at -O0?
Presumably not at the GIMPLE level, but possibly at the RTL level.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 17:05, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 17:03, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose we could use memcmp on the as variable itself, to inspect
> > > the actual stored padding rather than the returned copy of it.
> >
> > Yes, that's probably the only
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 17:03, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > I suppose we could use memcmp on the as variable itself, to inspect
> > the actual stored padding rather than the returned copy of it.
>
> Yes, that's probably the only safe stance when optimization is enabled.
Strictly speaking, it's not
> I suppose we could use memcmp on the as variable itself, to inspect
> the actual stored padding rather than the returned copy of it.
Yes, that's probably the only safe stance when optimization is enabled.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 at 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> > The test was only failing for me with -m32 (and not -m64), so I didn't
> > notice until now. That probably means we should make the test fail more
> > reliably if the padding isn't being cleared.
>
> The tests fail randomly for me on
> The test was only failing for me with -m32 (and not -m64), so I didn't
> notice until now. That probably means we should make the test fail more
> reliably if the padding isn't being cleared.
The tests fail randomly for me on SPARC64/Linux:
FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic/compare_exchange_padding.cc
Tested x86_64-linux, pushed to trunk.
The test was only failing for me with -m32 (and not -m64), so I didn't
notice until now. That probably means we should make the test fail more
reliably if the padding isn't being cleared.
-- >8 --
This test was written assuming that std::atomic_ref clears
