On 05/15/2012 02:16 PM, Patrick Marlier wrote:
Tested on i686.
Is the patch ok? Thanks.
BTW, Should we generate a warning or an error?
--
2012-05-15 Patrick Marlier patrick.marl...@gmail.com
* trans-mem.c (diagnose_tm_1_op): Warn about assignment of transaction
unsafe
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:02 -0500, Dave Boutcher wrote:
Without this patch it is perfectly fine to assign non-transaction_safe
functions to function pointers marked as transaction_safe. Unpleasantness
happens at run time.
e.g.
__attribute__((transaction_safe)) long (*compare)(int, int);
Follow-up of Dave's patch. I would prefer to see such checks in
trans-mem.c as follows.
In a transaction, a function pointer can be declared and assigned but
there is no check that the function pointer is transaction_safe. So at
runtime, if the function was unsafe, libitm stops on assert
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Torvald Riegel trie...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2012-05-08 at 18:02 -0500, Dave Boutcher wrote:
Without this patch it is perfectly fine to assign non-transaction_safe
functions to function pointers marked as transaction_safe. Unpleasantness
happens at run
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Patrick Marlier
patrick.marl...@gmail.com wrote:
Follow-up of Dave's patch. I would prefer to see such checks in trans-mem.c
as follows.
In a transaction, a function pointer can be declared and assigned but there
is no check that the function pointer is
