On 12/21/11 11:06, Patrick Marlier wrote:
Wonderful! Thanks Aldy.
On 12/21/2011 09:11 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
* ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
I believe I wasn't able to reproduce this.
Arg really! For the ope
On 01/09/12 04:20, Torvald Riegel wrote:
Looking at Patrick's old list, the following bugs are still open
[trans-mem] save/restore of thread-local data in nested txns is missing
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49581
Aldy, you wanted to take a look. Were you able to repr
On 01/09/2012 05:20 AM, Torvald Riegel wrote:
* ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
Still open?
Yes. I have started a thread here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01221.html
But as I said, probab
stage3 is over, so let's have a look at the open bugs again...
Looking at Patrick's old list, the following bugs are still open
> [trans-mem] save/restore of thread-local data in nested txns is missing
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49581
Aldy, you wanted to take a look. W
Wonderful! Thanks Aldy.
On 12/21/2011 09:11 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
* ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280
I believe I wasn't able to reproduce this.
Arg really! For the openmp testcase, I was wrong but the tm testca
* Stack save/restore not working? -> XFAIL testcases
Related to this:
ICE: verify_gimple failed: invalid rhs for gimple memory store with
-fgnu-tm --param tm-max-aggregate-size=32
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51472
Proposed fix, waiting for review.
[trans-mem] save/restore of
Patrick Marlier writes:
> I hope this message could help. Do not hesitate to complete the list (I can
> try to have a look at it) or close bugs (I cannot do it).
There's also PR middle-end/51252
FAIL: c-c++-common/tm/freq.c (internal compiler error)
which affects all targets without named sect
On Thu, 15 Dec 2011, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Hi Guys!
>
> Transactional Memory will be released in 4.7 so even if it is experimental, I
> hope it will come with only few bugs in it. Users could be enthusiastic to
> test it so it could be great to offer them a great experience.
>
> Here a list o
On 12/15/2011 03:07 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
on x86_64-apple-darwin11. While Linux/ia32 and Linux/x86-64 don't
seem to be exhibiting those failures any more, I don't see any
analysis of the cause of the previous failures or fixes proposed to
address these. Did the problem just go latent on those t
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:51:39AM -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Hi Guys!
>
> Transactional Memory will be released in 4.7 so even if it is
> experimental, I hope it will come with only few bugs in it. Users could
> be enthusiastic to test it so it could be great to offer them a great
> exp
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 10:51 -0500, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Here a list of known bugs for trans-mem. I have tried to sort it by
> priority (highest first).
Thanks for this list!
Items that I would add:
* Publication safety could potentially be violated. We suspect this can
happen when loads ar
Hi Guys!
Transactional Memory will be released in 4.7 so even if it is
experimental, I hope it will come with only few bugs in it. Users could
be enthusiastic to test it so it could be great to offer them a great
experience.
Here a list of known bugs for trans-mem. I have tried to sort it by
12 matches
Mail list logo
