Wow, thank you all, you guys!
在 2024年3月14日星期四，Jonathan Wakely 写道：
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 14:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > > Ah, although __atomic_compare_e
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:15, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 14:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > > Ah, although __atomic_compare_exchange only takes pointers, the
> > > compiler replaces that with a call to __at
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 14:10, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > Ah, although __atomic_compare_exchange only takes pointers, the
> > compiler replaces that with a call to __atomic_compare_exchange_n
> > which takes the newval by value, whic
On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 01:51:54PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Ah, although __atomic_compare_exchange only takes pointers, the
> compiler replaces that with a call to __atomic_compare_exchange_n
> which takes the newval by value, which presumably uses an 80-bit FP
> register and so the padding
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 12:38, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 16:52, xndcn wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for your careful review!
> >
> > > But we don't need a new one if it's going to be used in exactly one test
> > > and if the new option does the same thing for all targets that ru
On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 at 16:52, xndcn wrote:
>
> Thank you for your careful review!
>
> > But we don't need a new one if it's going to be used in exactly one test
> > and if the new option does the same thing for all targets that run the test.
> Got it, thanks. Now add option "-latomic" directly, bu
Thank you for your careful review!
> But we don't need a new one if it's going to be used in exactly one test and
> if the new option does the same thing for all targets that run the test.
Got it, thanks. Now add option "-latomic" directly, but it still rely
on the trick "[atomic_link_flags [get_
On Wed, 31 Jan 2024 at 17:20, xndcn wrote:
>
> Thanks!
>
> > Why not just use -latomic unconditionally here?
> testsuites of libstdc++ seems to have some tricks to find and link
> libatomic.a by using "dg-add-options libatomic", which do nothing for
> x86 target. In previous email, we decide not t
Thanks!
> Why not just use -latomic unconditionally here?
testsuites of libstdc++ seems to have some tricks to find and link
libatomic.a by using "dg-add-options libatomic", which do nothing for
x86 target. In previous email, we decide not to pollute the current
option, so we add a new libatomic_1
On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 04:34:30PM +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++
> > b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_float/compare_exchange_padding.cc
> > @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
> > +// { dg-do run { target c++20 } }
> > +// { dg-options "-O0" }
> > +// { dg-timeout 10 }
Why dg-tim
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 16:17, xndcn wrote:
>
> Sorry about the mangled content...
> So I add a new add-options for libatomic_16b:
>
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __builtin_clear_padding in
> __atomic_float constructor.
> * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp: add n
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 at 16:17, xndcn wrote:
>
> Sorry about the mangled content...
> So I add a new add-options for libatomic_16b:
>
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __builtin_clear_padding in
> __atomic_float constructor.
> * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp: add n
Ping, thanks.
I do not have access to the repo, anyone can please help me submit the
patch? Thanks.
xndcn 于2024年1月17日周三 00:16写道：
>
> Sorry about the mangled content...
> So I add a new add-options for libatomic_16b:
>
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __builtin
Hi, is it OK for trunk? I do not have access to the repo, can you
please help me submit the patch? Thanks.
xndcn 于2024年1月17日周三 00:16写道：
>
> Sorry about the mangled content...
> So I add a new add-options for libatomic_16b:
>
> ---
> libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>
> * include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __
Sorry about the mangled content...
So I add a new add-options for libatomic_16b:
---
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __builtin_clear_padding in
__atomic_float constructor.
* testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp: add new add-options for libatomic_16b.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomi
On Tue, 2024-01-16 at 17:53 +0800, xndcn wrote:
> Thanks, so I add a test: atomic_float/compare_exchange_padding.cc,
> which will fail due to timeout without the patch.
Please resend in plain text instead of HTML. Sending in HTML causes the
patch mangled.
And libstdc++ patches should CC libstd..
Thanks, so I add a test: atomic_float/compare_exchange_padding.cc, which
will fail due to timeout without the patch.
---
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* include/bits/atomic_base.h: add __builtin_clear_padding in
__atomic_float constructor.
* testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp: enable libatomic for IA32 and
On Sun, Jan 7, 2024, 5:02 PM xndcn wrote:
> Hi, I found __atomic_float constructor does not clear padding,
> while __compare_exchange assumes it as zeroed padding. So it is easy to
> reproducing a infinite loop in X86-64 with long double type like:
> ---
> -O0 -std=c++23 -mlong-double-80
> #inclu
Ping. Thanks.
xndcn 于2024年1月8日周一 09:01写道：
> Hi, I found __atomic_float constructor does not clear padding,
> while __compare_exchange assumes it as zeroed padding. So it is easy to
> reproducing a infinite loop in X86-64 with long double type like:
> ---
> -O0 -std=c++23 -mlong-double-80
> #incl
Hi, I found __atomic_float constructor does not clear padding,
while __compare_exchange assumes it as zeroed padding. So it is easy to
reproducing a infinite loop in X86-64 with long double type like:
---
-O0 -std=c++23 -mlong-double-80
#include
#include
#define T long double
int main() {
st
20 matches
Mail list logo
