https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68122
--- Comment #11 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #10) > There are lots of internal functions in GCC 6 (older versions had fewer). > Many of them are ECF_CONST, which is also treated like txn_pure, right? I think it should be (ie, won't access global memory, so is a black box an only output/input is values) -- but I don't know whether we do this everywhere. > Other than that, e.g. the remaining UBSAN* handlers are pretty much just > report some diagnostics and either terminate the program or return, but in a > valid program they should never be called. If we treat them as ECF_TM_PURE, > that would worst case mean the diagnostics could be printed multiple times > for the same spot in a transaction, if the transaction is restarted, right? Yes. > Most of them are not reporting the same diagnostics for the same source code > location, so I suppose it would be no harm to treat them as tm pure. Agreed. Are we running the TM pass before the pass that replaces UBSAN* with real code?
