On 13/01/16 10:16 -0700, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
On 01/13/2016 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/10/15 14:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Here's the latest version of the patch, including the typo fix.
Is this patch OK for trunk?
The original thread faded out, it's split across two mon
On 01/13/2016 07:27 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/10/15 14:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Here's the latest version of the patch, including the typo fix.
Is this patch OK for trunk?
The original thread faded out, it's split across two months in the
archives:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
On 03/10/15 14:00 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Here's the latest version of the patch, including the typo fix.
Is this patch OK for trunk?
The original thread faded out, it's split across two months in the
archives:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-09/msg02190.html
https://gcc.gnu.org
Here's the latest version of the patch, including the typo fix.
commit 96468d6b7e782501459bad306b31d45bc0ba5155
Author: Jonathan Wakely
Date: Sat Oct 3 13:59:47 2015 +0100
Clarify __atomic_compare_exchange effects
* doc/extend.texi (__atomic Builtins): Clarify compare_exchange
There's a typo in an example too.
diff --git a/gcc/doc/extend.texi b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
index ce1b4ae..599ad87 100644
--- a/gcc/doc/extend.texi
+++ b/gcc/doc/extend.texi
@@ -9471,7 +9471,7 @@ alignment. A value of 0 indicates typical alignment should be used. The
compiler may also ignore this
On 01/10/15 11:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
H, yes. Looking at the section as a whole, is it a bug in the
implementation that the built-ins only "approximately match" the C++11
requirements?
AFAIK they exactly match, so I don't know why the docs say that.
If there were an exact corr
On 10/01/2015 05:28 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/29/2015 04:21 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
What is "weak compare_exchange", and what is "the strong variation", and
how do they differ in terms of behavior?
It's in C++11 29.6.5:
Remark: The weak compare-and-exchange operations may fail spuriou
On 01/10/15 18:34 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 10/01/2015 06:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I would suggest we don't try to reproduce the standard definition, but
just say the weak version can fail spuriously and the strong can't.
IMHO this isn't the place to educate people in the fine points of
On 10/01/2015 06:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> I would suggest we don't try to reproduce the standard definition, but
> just say the weak version can fail spuriously and the strong can't.
> IMHO this isn't the place to educate people in the fine points of
> low-level atomics. As it says, "when in
On 01/10/15 12:28 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 09/29/2015 04:21 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
What is "weak compare_exchange", and what is "the strong variation", and
how do they differ in terms of behavior?
It's in C++11 29.6.5:
Remark: The weak compare-and-exchange operations may fail spurio
On 09/29/2015 04:21 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> What is "weak compare_exchange", and what is "the strong variation", and
> how do they differ in terms of behavior?
It's in C++11 29.6.5:
Remark: The weak compare-and-exchange operations may fail spuriously,
that is, return false while leaving th
On 09/29/2015 06:00 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Someone on IRC incorrectly parsed the docs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.2.0/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html#index-g_t_005f_005fatomic_005fcompare_005fexchange_005fn-3536
as:
IF
(
desired is written into *ptr
AND
the execu
Someone on IRC incorrectly parsed the docs at
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-5.2.0/gcc/_005f_005fatomic-Builtins.html#index-g_t_005f_005fatomic_005fcompare_005fexchange_005fn-3536
as:
IF
(
desired is written into *ptr
AND
the execution is considered to conform to the memory model
sp
13 matches
Mail list logo
