On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:46 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 15:31 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > > No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please report it.
> > >
> > > Th
On Fri, 20 Oct 2017, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 15:31 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > > No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please report it.
> >
> > This bug is fixed on trunk, so should work from gcc-8 onwards (PR 80640).
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 12:47 +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 13:58 +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I have this code:
> >
> > #include
> >
> > int ready;
> > int message;
> >
> > void send_x4711(int m) {
> > message = m*4711;
> > atomic_thread_fence(
On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 13:18 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 19/10/17 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > There are no atomic operations on atomic objects here, so the fence
> > doesn't synchronize with anything.
>
> Really? This seems rather unhelpful, to say the least.
>
> An atomic release opera
On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 15:31 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 19/10/17 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> > > Did I misunderstand the semantics of
> > > atomic_thread_fence+memory_order_release?
> >
> > No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please
On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 13:58 +0200, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have this code:
>
> #include
>
> int ready;
> int message;
>
> void send_x4711(int m) {
> message = m*4711;
> atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release);
> ready = 1;
> }
>
> When I compile it with GCC 7.2 -O
On 19/10/17 14:04, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 19/10/17 14:18, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 19/10/17 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> There are no atomic operations on atomic objects here, so the fence
>>> doesn't synchronize with anything.
>> Really? This seems rather unhelpful, to say the least.
>
On 19/10/17 14:18, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 19/10/17 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
There are no atomic operations on atomic objects here, so the fence
doesn't synchronize with anything.
Really? This seems rather unhelpful, to say the least.
An atomic release operation X in thread A synchronizes
On 2017-10-19 14:31, Alexander Monakov wrote:
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 19/10/17 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
Did I misunderstand the semantics of
atomic_thread_fence+memory_order_release?
No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please report it.
This bug is fixed on t
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 19/10/17 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> > Did I misunderstand the semantics of
> > atomic_thread_fence+memory_order_release?
>
> No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please report it.
This bug is fixed on trunk, so should work from gcc-8 onwar
On 19/10/17 13:10, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> There are no atomic operations on atomic objects here, so the fence
> doesn't synchronize with anything.
Really? This seems rather unhelpful, to say the least.
An atomic release operation X in thread A synchronizes-with an acquire
fence F in thread B,
On 19/10/17 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> I have this code:
>
> #include
>
> int ready;
> int message;
>
> void send_x4711(int m) {
> message = m*4711;
> atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release);
> ready = 1;
> }
>
> When I compile it with GCC 7.2 -O3 -std=c11 on x86_64 it p
On 19 October 2017 at 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I have this code:
>
> #include
>
> int ready;
> int message;
>
> void send_x4711(int m) {
> message = m*4711;
> atomic_thread_fence(memory_order_release);
> ready = 1;
> }
>
> When I compile it with GCC 7.2 -O3 -std=c11 on
13 matches
Mail list logo
