https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97309
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> If all accesses to a variable use atomic ops, does that mean it's immune
> from the unsafe optimizations enabled by this flag? If no, that makes -Ofast
> unus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97309
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think this is still unclear.
What does "new data races" mean? Can it introduce races in code that had none
previously? Or only add new ones to code that already has them?
Does this make -Ofast incompati
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97309
qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97309
--- Comment #2 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Qing Zhao :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:baf4750feaa6a5fa502ae7bc0b90f31640af6f47
commit r11-3732-gbaf4750feaa6a5fa502ae7bc0b90f31640af6f47
Author: qing zhao
Date: Thu Oct 8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97309
--- Comment #1 from qinzhao at gcc dot gnu.org ---
proposed patch:
Subject: [PATCH] PR97309--improve documentation of -fallow-store-data-races
---
gcc/doc/invoke.texi | 13 -
1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --g
