On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:41 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I have tried to make the dependent_ptr qualification act as volatile
> during the RTL passes to bypass the RTL optimizations for now. Here is the
> patch
> https://github.com/AKG001/gcc/commit/14c05ae546554f822f667fdb72080b7fe52fea3
Hi all,
I have tried to make the dependent_ptr qualification act as volatile during
the RTL passes to bypass the RTL optimizations for now. Here is the patch
https://github.com/AKG001/gcc/commit/14c05ae546554f822f667fdb72080b7fe52fea32
For this (https://github.com/AKG001/test/blob/master/dependenc
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 10:54 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM Richard Biener
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>> Consider part of an example(figure 20) from doc P0190R4(
>>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/paper
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:11 PM Richard Biener
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>> Consider part of an example(figure 20) from doc P0190R4(
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0190r4.pdf)
>> shown below:
>>
>> 1. void thread1 (void
On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 2:27 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> Hi all,
> Consider part of an example(figure 20) from doc P0190R4(
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0190r4.pdf)
> shown below:
>
> 1. void thread1 (void)
> 2. {
> 3.int * volatile p;
> 4.p = rcu_dereference(g
Hi all,
Consider part of an example(figure 20) from doc P0190R4(
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2017/p0190r4.pdf) shown
below:
1. void thread1 (void)
2. {
3.int * volatile p;
4.p = rcu_dereference(gip);
5.if (p)
6.assert(*(p+p[0]) == 42);
7. }
The .gimple cod
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:06 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radha
On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 9:48 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 7, 2019 at 7:49 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 06, 2019 at 12:39:45PM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:09 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 7:18 AM Paul E. McKenney <
>>
On Fri, 5 Jul, 2019, 4:50 PM Richard Biener,
wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:08 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:39 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >> > > I think fully guaranteeing this is hard (besi
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 1:08 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:39 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>> > > I think fully guaranteeing this is hard (besides when you use
>> > > volatile), we have the very same issue whe
On Thu, Jul 4, 2019 at 11:39 PM Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > I think fully guaranteeing this is hard (besides when you use
> > > volatile), we have the very same issue when dealing with
> > > pointer provenance rules, known for yea
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 10:40:15AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > I think fully guaranteeing this is hard (besides when you use
> > volatile), we have the very same issue when dealing with
> > pointer provenance rules, known for years and not fixed
> > (and I don't see a good way to fix these i
On Thu, Jul 04, 2019 at 01:00:18PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:33 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:47:56PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On July 3, 2019 5:14:58 PM GMT+02:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Wed, Jul 03, 2019
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 6:33 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:47:56PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On July 3, 2019 5:14:58 PM GMT+02:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
> > wrote:
> > >On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:39:41AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 05:47:56PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 3, 2019 5:14:58 PM GMT+02:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:39:41AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 PM Paul E. McKenney
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jul 02, 201
On July 3, 2019 5:14:58 PM GMT+02:00, "Paul E. McKenney"
wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:39:41AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 PM Paul E. McKenney
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 a
On Wed, Jul 03, 2019 at 12:39:41AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Once a user-c
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 07:53:20PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On July 2, 2019 5:36:08 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM A
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:06 PM Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radha
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 8:40 PM Paul E. McKenney
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to
> > > break the depend
On July 2, 2019 5:36:08 PM GMT+02:00, Jason Merrill wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney
>wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg
>wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radha
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:59 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
> > > ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On T
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 02:15:55PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> >
> > Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to
> > break the dependency.
>
> Ok, that's good.
> >
> > Or am I missing the point here?
>
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:38 PM Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> Once a user-created non-dependent pointer is assigned to, it is OK to
> break the dependency.
Ok, that's good.
>
> Or am I missing the point here?
I was just trying to make sure we were on the same page. I wonder if
marking this volatil
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 12:01:00PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> >>
> >> It's worth figuring out what passes are doing this - however the worry
> >> I have is that every pass now needs to be handling this case with
> >> respect to pointer attributes. Is there some place that you are
> >> sto
>>
>> It's worth figuring out what passes are doing this - however the worry
>> I have is that every pass now needs to be handling this case with
>> respect to pointer attributes. Is there some place that you are
>> storing said information and what is the transitive nature of
>> assignments with t
On Tue, 2 Jul, 2019, 3:52 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan, <
ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:29 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
> ramana@googlemail.com> wrot
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 1:29 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>>
>> [CCing gcc mailing list]
>>
>> So, shall I start looking over the pointer optimizations only and see what
>> info
On 2019-07-01 8:59 p.m., Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
>>> ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019
On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:58:48AM +0530, Akshat Garg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
> > ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >> >
> >> > As we ha
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 9:49 PM Akshat Garg wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
> ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
>> >
>> > As we have some working front-end code for _Dependent_ptr, What should
>> we do next?
On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:04 PM Ramana Radhakrishnan <
ramana@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 11:03 AM Akshat Garg wrote:
> >
> > As we have some working front-end code for _Dependent_ptr, What should
> we do next? What I understand, we can start adding the library for
> depe
32 matches
Mail list logo
