http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59204
Bug ID: 59204
Summary: Incorrect metaprogram evaluation in SFINAE context
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59203
Bug ID: 59203
Summary: config/cris/cris.c:2491: possible typo ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59205
Bug ID: 59205
Summary: config/iq2000/iq2000.c:2188: possible cut'n'paste
error ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Bug ID: 59206
Summary: [4.9 regression] many bootstrap comparison failures on
armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Bug ID: 59207
Summary: config/sparc/sparc.c:10663: possible uninit local
variable ?
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
--- Comment #6 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, congh at google dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59006
>
> Cong Hou changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
> ---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59135
--- Comment #1 from Daniel Krügler ---
The problem seems to exist in gcc 4.7.3 and within the recent 4.9.0 trunk. The
following variant of the code removes unnecessary library dependencies and
constexpr (which is not needed to reproduce the proble
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: dcb314 at hotmail dot com
Created attachment 31256
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31256&action=edit
gzipped C++ source code
The source code from bug # 45875, when compiled with today's trunk
of 20131120, says
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59144
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59165
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59204
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
Bug ID: 59209
Summary: builtin memcpy in inlined function is not optimized
away if count is derived from src pointer difference
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59035
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Wed Nov 20 10:31:24 2013
New Revision: 205096
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205096&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2013-11-20 Richard Biener
PR lto/59035
* lto-opts.c (lto_writ
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59035
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
In test_copy2, we get:
_2 = x_1(D) + 1;
src_end.1_8 = (long int) _2;
src_start.2_9 = (long int) x_1(D);
_10 = src_end.1_8 - src_start.2_9;
_11 = (long unsigned int) _10;
This reminds me of PR 58742:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59209
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target||armv5tel-linux-gnueabi
Target Mileston
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59201
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
Status|UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
--- Comment #1 from Richard Biener
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59197
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||octoploid at yandex dot com
--- Com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59142
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58742
--- Comment #14 from Marc Glisse ---
So we don't forget it, PR 59209 asks to simplify:
(ptr+size)-ptr to size
not just:
ptr1+(ptr2-ptr1) to ptr2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
Richard Earnshaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59142
--- Comment #7 from Charles Baylis ---
Comparing reduced.cpp.153r.cse1 in r172837 and the previous commit.
--- reduced.cpp.153r.cse1 from gcc trunk r172835 [works]
(insn 18 17 19 2 (parallel [
(set (mem/s:SI (reg/f:SI 138) [5 MEM[(st
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener ---
I think the issue is
(set_nb_iterations_in_loop = ~(unsigned short) pretmp_22))
t.c:12:6: note: ==> get_loop_niters:-(unsigned short) pretmp_22
that is, number_of_exit_cond_executions which returns
number_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57756
--- Comment #10 from Kirill Yukhin ---
Author: kyukhin
Date: Wed Nov 20 11:59:05 2013
New Revision: 205104
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205104&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/57756
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_option_override_internal): Add
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58028
Graham Markall changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||graham at opengamma dot com
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener ---
Unfortunately
@@ -2930,11 +2931,31 @@ number_of_exit_cond_executions (struct l
if (chrec_contains_undetermined (ret))
return ret;
- ret = chrec_fold_plus (type, ret, build_int_cst (type, 1));
- if
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Bug ID: 59210
Summary: decltype incorrectly accepted as non-first element of
nested-name-specifier
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #6 from Richard Biener ---
I improve this with also using max_stmt_executions I at least get no
vect.exp fail but the testcase in this PR is not vectorized when using
a size_t b.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #6 from chrbr at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 31257
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31257&action=edit
test case
cc1 -O2 consolemap.c -quiet
drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59206
--- Comment #2 from Mikael Pettersson ---
(In reply to Richard Earnshaw from comment #1)
> Can you try it again at SVN revision r205061.
Retrying at that rev ...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Still FAILs to vectorize gcc.dg/vect/pr18425.c with -m32. But we have here
=> get_loop_niters:(unsigned long) (__n_7(D) + 4294967295) + 1
that could have been simplified. __n is unsigned int. So I can sp
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59210
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
Bug ID: 59211
Summary: init_priority doesn't work with constant expressions
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #7 from Oleg Endo ---
(In reply to chrbr from comment #5)
> Linux kernel build fails since 4.8
>
> cc1 -O2 consolemap.c
>
> drivers/char/consolemap.c:654:647: error: 'asm' operand requires impossible
> reload
>
> seems to be due to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Bug ID: 59212
Summary: [4.9 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c
compilation
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bug ID: 59213
Summary: Implicit move constructor created when base class has
no move constructor
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.1
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #1 from Marc Glisse ---
Similar to PR 53017 (does the same +0 workaround work?). The main difference
with constructor seems to be a call to default_conversion.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Author: redi
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:39:33 2013
New Revision: 205114
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205114&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR c++/59173
* include/ext/pointer.h (pointer_traits<>::rebind<>):
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59173
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||accepts-invalid
Status|UNCO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #3 from Joost VandeVondele
---
actually it seems more general an issue, the following:
SUBROUTINE S1(m)
REAL :: m
!$OMP ATOMIC
m=m+1.0
END
REAL :: m
m=0.0
!$OMP PARALLEL
CALL S1(m)
!$OMP END PARALLEL
END
flags race for the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #7 from swalter at lexmark dot com ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
> attribute malloc on the malloc function call.
>
> So this is invalid.
Sorry, c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I think G++ is implementing the resolution of
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/cwg_defects.html#1402
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
--- Comment #1 from Diego Novillo ---
Author: dnovillo
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:48:40 2013
New Revision: 205115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205115&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR 59212
* g++.dg/plugin/selfassign.c: Include stringpool.h
Modi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Bruce Merry from comment #0)
> assuming I've correctly interpreted the C++11 spec [the draft - N3242].
That's a pretty old draft now, you'd be better looking at a current draft
(N3797) not one
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Diego Novillo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59058
--- Comment #8 from Richard Biener ---
Created attachment 31259
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31259&action=edit
candidate patch
Candidate patch.
But I think it's better to remove this functions users.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Because CPUs obviously don't have floating point atomic instructions, what the
compiler does is just load it as an integer, view convert to floating point,
perform arithmetics, view convert result back to inte
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54300
--- Comment #13 from Richard Earnshaw ---
Author: rearnsha
Date: Wed Nov 20 13:55:04 2013
New Revision: 205117
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205117&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR rtl-optimization/54300
gcc/
PR rtl-optimization/54300
*
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59213
Bruce Merry changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
Bug ID: 59214
Summary: [4.9 Regression] Many plugin test failures
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: plugins
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59214
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59212
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #21 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Author: jsm28
Date: Wed Nov 20 14:34:49 2013
New Revision: 205119
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205119&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR middle-end/21718
* real.c: Remove comment about decimal string
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16989
Bug 16989 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #23 from Joseph S. Myers ---
*** Bug 55145 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55145
Bug 55145 depends on bug 21718, which changed state.
Bug 21718 Summary: real.c rounding not perfect
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
What|Removed |Added
-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59208
David Edelsohn changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #24 from Rick Regan ---
I don't understand -- won't "mpfr_init2 (m, SIGNIFICAND_BITS);" have the same
problem? Don't we need to change the computation of SIGNIFICAND_BITS in real.h?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58314
--- Comment #8 from Oleg Endo ---
Created attachment 31260
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31260&action=edit
reduced test case
(In reply to chrbr from comment #6)
> Created attachment 31257 [details]
> test case
>
> cc1 -O2 c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59198
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #1)
> However, I can not reproduce the ICE with
> 4.6.4:
Neither with the original test case in comment 0, nor with the reduced version
in comment 1!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59211
--- Comment #2 from Nadav Har'El ---
Amazing, this workaround indeed works :-) Thanks!
With the constexpr prio, indeed using prio+0 solved the problem.
For the enum class, prio::second, I can't use addition (because it isn't
implemented in this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
--- Comment #4 from uros at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: uros
Date: Wed Nov 20 16:01:46 2013
New Revision: 205122
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205122&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Backport from mainline
2013-11-18 Uros Bizjak
* conf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59153
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21718
--- Comment #25 from Joseph S. Myers ---
Rounding to zero and setting a sticky bit based on inexactness works as long as
the internal precision has at least two more bits than the final precision for
which correctly rounded results are required.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
Bug ID: 59215
Summary: tsan: warning in shared_ptr_base.h
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: sanitizer
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #1 from Kostya Serebryany ---
This reminds me http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=17066
Do you have this problem with clang's tsan?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #1 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Created attachment 31261
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31261&action=edit
negsidi_test.c
testcase.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Bug ID: 59216
Summary: [ARM] negdi*extendsidi regression
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: target
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org |
Assignee|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #2 from Oleg Smolsky ---
Unfortunately, I cannot repro with Clang (we use gcc48 with sysroot, and
I failed to get Clang to latch onto that STL. It only discovers the
system's STL)
I can try to come up with a minimal test case... Yet
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #3 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:02:36 2013
New Revision: 205127
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205127&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_fold_builtin) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
--- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou ---
Author: ebotcazou
Date: Wed Nov 20 17:03:15 2013
New Revision: 205128
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=205128&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/59207
* config/sparc/sparc.c (sparc_fold_builtin) :
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #3 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> I can try to come up with a minimal test case... Yet, I cannot imagine
> that the following would ever work with TSan:
> typedef int _Atomic_word;
It does not matter how _Atomic_word is de
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
--- Comment #2 from christophe.lyon at st dot com ---
Basically, the working code does:
asrsr3, r2, #31
negsr2, r2
sbc.w r3, r3, r3, lsl #1
while the failing one does:
negsr2, r2
asrsr3, r2, #31
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59207
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59216
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Target Milestone|---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #5 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I bet tsan complains because the load is
> not atomic, but does it really matter?
I think there are (at least) two possible answers to this.
1) No, it do
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #6 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #4)
> I bet tsan complains because the load is
> not atomic, but does it really matter? If we read garbage there, compare
> and swap will fail and next time we'll
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Oleg Smolsky from comment #0)
> in ...gcc/include/c++/4.8.x-google/x86_64-unknown-linux/bits/atomic_word.h
>
>typedef int _Atomic_word;
>
> Should this be std::atomic ?
No.
(In repl
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59217
Bug ID: 59217
Summary: GCC fails to cross-build: conflicting declarations of
'basename', 'sbrk', etc.
Product: gcc
Version: 4.8.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: n
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek ---
And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
That said, during stage3 I'll look at how costly would be to use there
__atomic_load_n with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
understand the atomic updates in the library they library needs to be compiled
with the race detector enabled. We can update the d
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> tsan as well, but the point is till ...
s/till/still/
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54954
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to swalter from comment #7)
> (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> > The header file malloc.h (which is non-standard by the way) has the
> > attribute malloc on the malloc function call.
>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #8 from Kostya Serebryany ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #6)
> I realise that, but the general point is still valid: for race detectors to
> understand the atomic updates in the library they library needs to be
> compile
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59194
--- Comment #8 from Joost VandeVondele
---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #7)
> And the problem with that is? Because the arithmetics is based on the value
> we've read, it shouldn't be a problem.
Ah...right.
> That said, during stag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #9 from Oleg Smolsky ---
So, let me see if I understand. The case in question is _M_add_ref_lock() :
template<>
inline void
_Sp_counted_base<_S_atomic>::
_M_add_ref_lock()
{
// Perform lock-free add-if-not-zero
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59215
--- Comment #5 from Kostya Serebryany ---
> > But only if you re-compile stdlibc++ with tsan,
>
> It's libstdc++ not stdlibc++, I don't know why everyone gets that wrong :-)
Sorry (I usually get it right) :)
>
> Anyway, this is already docum
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
