http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #13 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-19 03:01:16 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Tue Jun 19 03:01:10 2012
New Revision: 188766
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188766
Log:
2012-06-18 Joey Ye
Backported from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #12 from jye2 at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-06-08 06:58:32 UTC ---
Author: jye2
Date: Fri Jun 8 06:58:25 2012
New Revision: 188327
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=188327
Log:
Backport mainline r179607, r179979, r179980
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
rsand...@gcc.gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #10 from rsandifo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-14 14:38:48 UTC ---
Author: rsandifo
Date: Fri Oct 14 14:38:42 2011
New Revision: 179980
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=179980
Log:
gcc/
2011-10-14 David Alan Gilbe
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
Ramana Radhakrishnan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #8 from Michael K. Edwards
2011-06-24 11:28:53 UTC ---
So I think we agree that the CLREX is needless, but the DMB should move after
the branch target. Does that make this bug "confirmed"? (I don't feel the
need for patch credit. :-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #7 from Marcus Shawcroft
2011-06-23 09:32:59 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Michael:
> I think I agree with you on the need for the barrier in the branch out case;
> gcc's info page (section 6.49 'Built-in functions for atomic mem
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #6 from Michael K. Edwards
2011-06-22 19:00:54 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> If I understand correctly however most cases wouldn't need it - I think most
> cases are use the compare&swap to take some form of lock, and then once
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
Dr. David Alan Gilbert changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||david.gilbert at linaro dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #4 from Michael K. Edwards
2011-05-24 16:38:41 UTC ---
OK, that's a clear explanation of why the DMB is necessary in the case where
both the compare and the store succeed (neither branch is taken; at a higher
semantic level, a lock is
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #3 from Marcus Shawcroft
2011-05-24 13:37:03 UTC ---
The primitive is required to have lock semantics therefore the load of the old
value must be followed by a dmb in the case that the old value comparison
succeeds and the swap goes a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
--- Comment #2 from Michael K. Edwards
2011-03-17 18:14:11 UTC ---
Please insert the text of your citations, since the ARM ARM is not a public
document.
I think I'm persuaded that the CLREX isn't necessary -- although I'm going to
keep it in my
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48126
Marcus Shawcroft changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||marcus.shawcroft at arm dot
13 matches
Mail list logo
