> Good question. Most of the time the expansion can not know if it expands
> Ada, C, or Fortran. In this case we know it can only be Ada, so the C++
> memory model is not mandatory. Maybe Eric can tell, if a data store race
> condition may be an issue in Ada if structure is laid out like
> __attri
Hi,
On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 15:55:08Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I had forgotten to run the Ada test suite when I submitted the previous
>> version of this patch.
>> And indeed there were some Ada test cases failing because in Ada
On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I had forgotten to run the Ada test suite when I submitted the previous
> version of this patch.
> And indeed there were some Ada test cases failing because in Ada packed
> structures are
> like bit fields, but without the DECL_
Hello,
I had forgotten to run the Ada test suite when I submitted the previous version
of this patch.
And indeed there were some Ada test cases failing because in Ada packed
structures are
like bit fields, but without the DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE attribute.
Please find attached the updated version o
Hi,
On Fri, 15 Nov 2013 13:30:51, Richard Biener wrote:
>> That looks like always pretending it is a bit field.
>> But it is not a bit field, and bitregion_start=bitregion_end=0
>> means it is an ordinary value.
>
> I don't think it is supposed to mean that. It's supposed to mean
> "the access is
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
>>
>> Err, well. This just means that the generic C++ memory model
>> handling isn't complete. We do
>>
>> if (TREE_CODE (to) == COMPONENT_REF
>> && DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (to, 1)))
>> get_bit_range (&bitregion_start, &bitregion_en
>
> Err, well. This just means that the generic C++ memory model
> handling isn't complete. We do
>
> if (TREE_CODE (to) == COMPONENT_REF
> && DECL_BIT_FIELD_TYPE (TREE_OPERAND (to, 1)))
> get_bit_range (&bitregion_start, &bitregion_end, to, &bitpos, &offset);
>
> and thus restrict ourselves to bit
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:12:39AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
>> Btw, what does the C++ memory model say for
>>
>> struct { char x; short a; short b; } a __attribute__((packed));
>
> Nothing, because packed is outside of the standard?
Ok,
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:12:39AM +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> Btw, what does the C++ memory model say for
>
> struct { char x; short a; short b; } a __attribute__((packed));
Nothing, because packed is outside of the standard?
Jakub
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> meanwhile, I have added a test case to that patch.
>
> Boot-strapped and regression-tested as usual.
>
> OK for trunk?
Err, well. This just means that the generic C++ memory model
handling isn't complete. We do
if (TREE
Hello,
could you please approve this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02664.html
As it looks like, it fixes the problem reported under PR59134,
which is the expander enters infinite recursion while it tries to violate the
C++ memory model.
The memory context has still the st
Hello,
meanwhile, I have added a test case to that patch.
Boot-strapped and regression-tested as usual.
OK for trunk?
Bernd.
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:26:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> this patch fixes the r
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013, Richard Biener wrote:
> Btw, the C++ standard doesn't cover packed or aligned attributes so
> we could declare this a non-issue. Any opinion on that?
I think the memory model naturally applies to packed structures (i.e.,
writes to fields in them should not write to any othe
Hi,
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:26:20, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> this patch fixes the recently discovered data store race on arm-eabi-gcc
>> with -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields
>> for structures like this:
>>
>> #define test_ty
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this patch fixes the recently discovered data store race on arm-eabi-gcc with
> -fno-strict-volatile-bitfields
> for structures like this:
>
> #define test_type unsigned short
>
> typedef struct s{
> unsigned char Prefix[1];
>
Hello,
this patch fixes the recently discovered data store race on arm-eabi-gcc with
-fno-strict-volatile-bitfields
for structures like this:
#define test_type unsigned short
typedef struct s{
unsigned char Prefix[1];
test_type Type;
}__attribute((__packed__,__aligned__(4))) ss;
volatile ss
16 matches
Mail list logo
