On 10/04/2016 06:05 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 10/03/2016 02:26 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/03/16 08:13, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
>
On 10/03/2016 02:26 PM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> On 10/03/16 08:13, Martin Liška wrote:
>> On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>>> On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
> The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
> >>I would to somehow resolve the discussion related to default value
> >>selection.
> >>Is the prevailing consensus that we should set -fprofile-update=atomic
> >>when
> >>-pthread is set? If so, I'll prepare a patch. I tend to do it this way.
> >
> >This is my preference.
> Likewise.
I still th
On 10/03/2016 06:26 AM, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
On 10/03/16 08:13, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
Is it slower, m
On 10/03/16 08:13, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
On 08/18/2016 05:53 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>> I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
>>> The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
>>>
>>> Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
>>> garbage data otherwis
On 08/18/2016 06:06 PM, Richard Biener wrote:
> On August 18, 2016 5:54:49 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:51:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
>
On August 18, 2016 5:54:49 PM GMT+02:00, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:51:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> > I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
>> > The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
>> >
>> > Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are
On August 18, 2016 5:51:31 PM GMT+02:00, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
>> The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
>>
>> Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
>> garbage data otherwise, which in many ways is eve
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 08:51:31AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
> > The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
> >
> > Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
> > garbage data otherwise, which in many ways i
On 08/18/2016 09:51 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
garbage data otherwise, which in many ways is even worse.
It will likely be ca
> I'd prefer to make updates atomic in multi-threaded applications.
> The best proxy we have for that is -pthread.
>
> Is it slower, most definitely, but odds are we're giving folks
> garbage data otherwise, which in many ways is even worse.
It will likely be catastrophically slower in some cases
On 08/17/16 23:15, Jeff Law wrote:
On 08/12/2016 07:31 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/09/2016 09:03 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
It could potentially make things a lot slower. I don't think it's a good
idea to do this by default.
-Andi
Ok, alternative can be a warning in the driver that would inform
On 08/12/2016 07:31 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
On 08/09/2016 09:03 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
It could potentially make things a lot slower. I don't think it's a good
idea to do this by default.
-Andi
Ok, alternative can be a warning in the driver that would inform a user
that combining -pthread and
On 08/09/2016 09:03 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> It could potentially make things a lot slower. I don't think it's a good
> idea to do this by default.
>
> -Andi
Ok, alternative can be a warning in the driver that would inform a user
that combining -pthread and -fprofile-update=single can lead to prof
Martin Liška writes:
> Hi.
>
> As mention in [1], enabling -fprofile-update=atomic when -pthread is logical
> thing and is quite expected default behavior.
>
> Ready for trunk?
It could potentially make things a lot slower. I don't think it's a good
idea to do this by default.
-Andi
On 08/09/16 07:24, Martin Liška wrote:
Hi.
As mention in [1], enabling -fprofile-update=atomic when -pthread is logical
thing and is quite expected default behavior.
Ready for trunk?
[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58306#c21
This certainly requires changes to invoke.texi, an
17 matches
Mail list logo
