http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #21 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> > However the code I reported in bug 58409, which has been marked duplicate of
> > this bug, still exhibits the incorrect reordering of volatile acc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #19 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli ---
>> does not perform the volatile load access.
> It does starting with GCC 4.8.2 and was a bug in older GCC versions.
I just tested my example (comment 16) against yesterday trunk
gcc version
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58409
--- Comment #2 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli ---
Yes, it does fix the issue.
So this reordering is another effect of gcc not considering accessing volatile
fields in non-volatile structs as volatile access (as in bug 47409). Can I ask
about gc
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com
In the program below, at least according to the C11 standard, there is a
sequence point between the volatile store to g_3[0][0][0] and the volatile
store to *g_6 (that is, to the volatile int g_5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
Francesco Zappa Nardelli changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||francesco.zappa.nardelli@gm
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2013-01-30 14:44:45 UTC ---
Sorry, forgot to specify:
Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56150
Bug #: 56150
Summary: ICE segfault in do_pre / tail_merge_optimize
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-10-18 13:39:30 UTC ---
gcc version 4.8.0 20121018 (experimental) - which includes revision 192548 -
compiles this example correctly.
It also fixes http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54906
Bug #: 54906
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory
model (case with atomic accesses)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54900
Bug #: 54900
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model
(2)
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #4 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-09-02 17:55:10 UTC ---
Just to be precise, the program has an undefined behaviour in the test of the
first 'if':
(c ? 0 : 0 % 0)
because the right operand of % cannot be 0 (according to the sta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #2 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-09-02 16:23:35 UTC ---
Can reproduce with the latest svn trunk as well:
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/yquem/moscova/zappa/source/gcc-svn-bin/libexec/gcc/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-09-02 15:42:45 UTC ---
$ gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
COLLECT_GCC=gcc
COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/home/yquem/moscova/zappa/source/gcc-svn-bin/libexec/gcc/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/4.8.0/lto-wrapper
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54458
Bug #: 54458
Summary: get_loop_body, at cfgloop.c:830
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
--- Comment #1 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-08-23 16:34:38 UTC ---
Here is another C program that hits a similar write-introduction problem:
int g_7, g_372;
char func_10 () {
for (; g_7 < 0; ++g_7) {
}
return 0;
}
void main () {
i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54149
Bug #: 54149
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C11 memory model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #11 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli 2012-03-13 07:29:51 UTC ---
Just one remark: in this case the write introduction is incorrect wrt the C++11
memory model because there are no previous write to the same location. If
there had been a p
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
Bug #: 52558
Summary: write introduction incorrect wrt the C++11 memory
model
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
S
18 matches
Mail list logo
