On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 08:19:22PM +, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> > Could you add 'PR testsuite/68580' to the log entry when committing?
> >
>
> Yes, of course, thanks.
>
> Could someone take the time and review this patch?
> I don't think it can cause any trouble for gcc-6 and/or gcc-5
> even at
On 18.02.2016 12:36, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 15/02/16 12:29, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Here is a patch that puts each value on it's own 8-byte aligned memory
>> location. From my experience with tsan tests, sharing shadow memory
>> slots between v and q or o is the most likely explanation for the
On 15/02/16 12:29, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Here is a patch that puts each value on it's own 8-byte aligned memory
location. From my experience with tsan tests, sharing shadow memory
slots between v and q or o is the most likely explanation for the occasional
inability to spot the race condition on
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> And independently of that I am looking at using llvm's test.h framework
>> instead
>> of gcc's test_barrier.h for gcc-7 soon.
>
> Here’s to hoping that we don’t back slide on:
>
> https:/
On Feb 15, 2016, at 3:29 AM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> And independently of that I am looking at using llvm's test.h framework
> instead
> of gcc's test_barrier.h for gcc-7 soon.
Here’s to hoping that we don’t back slide on:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00436.html
Did they eve
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 15/02/16 13:05, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bernd Edlinger
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No problem. PR65400 was a GCC wrong code bug, so it makes no
>>> sense to have the same test in llvm's tree, thus we are free to
On 15/02/16 13:05, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bernd Edlinger
> wrote:
>>
>> No problem. PR65400 was a GCC wrong code bug, so it makes no
>> sense to have the same test in llvm's tree, thus we are free to fix it on
>> our own, as we like.
>>
>> Here is a patch that pu
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 15/02/16 08:18, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>> llvm tsan tests contain test.h file (probably what's called
>> test_barrier.h in gcc), you can put the macro there. test.h should
>> already be included into all tests.
>
> Hmm.. as the person who
On 15/02/16 08:18, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> llvm tsan tests contain test.h file (probably what's called
> test_barrier.h in gcc), you can put the macro there. test.h should
> already be included into all tests.
Hmm.. as the person who introduced test_barrer.h (well before llvm had a test.h
;)
I mu
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 15/02/16 10:07, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>
>> On 15/02/16 09:07, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>>If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/bu
On 15/02/16 10:07, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
On 15/02/16 09:07, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>>If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
>>first.
>
>As I tried to explain in the follow-
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Bernd Edlinger
wrote:
> On 15/02/16 09:07, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>>
>>>If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
>>>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
>>>first.
>>
>> As I tried to
On 15/02/16 09:07, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>>
>>If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
>>https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
>>first.
>
> As I tried to explain in the follow-up comment (
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
On 15/02/16 08:24, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
first.
As I tried to explain in the follow-up comment (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c3 ), since
unfortunately I have no reli
If we are talking about pr 68580, then I would try:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68580#c2
first.
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Occasionally, I've been running into this failure while run
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Occasionally, I've been running into this failure while running the tsan
> testsuite:
> ...
> FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/pr65400-1.c -O0 execution test
> ...
>
> I've also observed a potential similar occurrence here (
> https://gcc.gnu.o
Hi,
Occasionally, I've been running into this failure while running the tsan
testsuite:
...
FAIL: c-c++-common/tsan/pr65400-1.c -O0 execution test
...
I've also observed a potential similar occurrence here (
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2015-08/msg00147.html ).
Initially, I couldn'
17 matches
Mail list logo
