GNU OMPD implementation

2021-11-23 Thread Mohamed Atef via Gcc
Hello everyone, I need to remind you that we are working on implementation of OMPD, so you don't make it open for GSoC this year. our progress so far, We are working on a GDB extension using python so we can provide OMPD with callbacks. Jakub said that we need GDB support, but the GDB communit

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 17:16, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Dmitry Vyukov: > > > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > >> * Dmitry Vyukov: > >> > >> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct > >> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc. > >>

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Dmitry Vyukov: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> * Dmitry Vyukov: >> >> > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct >> > integration and worked with unmodified glibc. >> >> I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-e

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:59, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Dmitry Vyukov: > > > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct > > integration and worked with unmodified glibc. > > I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec > or local-exec TLS var

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Dmitry Vyukov: > Or what kind of integration do you mean? Tsan did not have any direct > integration and worked with unmodified glibc. I thought there is a false-positive data race report if an initial-exec or local-exec TLS variable is reused (whose memory is not managed by malloc). Thanks, F

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 14:49, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc: > > > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the > > ThreadSanitizer runtime: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603 > > Currently it's submitted: > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/

Re: New ThreadSanitizer runtime (v3)

2021-11-23 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Dmitry Vyukov via Gcc: > I wanted to give heads up regarding a significant re-design of the > ThreadSanitizer runtime: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D112603 > Currently it's submitted: > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/1784fe0532a69ead17793bced060a9bf9d232027 > but can well be rolled ba

Re: How to get started with contribution

2021-11-23 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Tue, 23 Nov 2021 at 13:22, Om Kenge via Gcc wrote: > > > Respected Sir/Madam, > I am Om Kenge, a Second Year IT Student, I have just entered my second year > at MMCOE Pune. I am new to open source contributions but I am well aware of > C++. I would love to contribute to your Organisation Tha

Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitri Gribenko via Gcc
Hi Alejandro, On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 12:45 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > > Hi Dmitry, > > On 11/23/21 12:17, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > Hi Alejandro, > > > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via > > cfe-dev wrote: > >> First of all, > >> I see unnecessar

Re: How to describe ‘earlyclobber’ explicitly for specific source operand ?

2021-11-23 Thread Richard Earnshaw via Gcc
On 22/11/2021 06:40, Jojo R via Gcc wrote: — Jojo 在 2021年11月20日 +0800 AM6:11,Peter Bergner ,写道: On 11/19/21 1:28 AM, Jojo R via Gcc wrote: We know gcc supply earlyclobber function to avoid register overlap, but it can not describe explicitly for specific source operand, is it right ? You

Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

2021-11-23 Thread Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via Gcc
Hi Dmitry, On 11/23/21 12:17, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: Hi Alejandro, On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via cfe-dev wrote: First of all, I see unnecessary (probably over-engineered) qualifiers: - _Null_unspecified seems to me the same as nothing. If I didn't specify

Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitri Gribenko via Gcc
Hi Alejandro, On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 1:06 AM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via cfe-dev wrote: > On 11/16/21 13:34, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote: > > $ cat _Nonnull.c > > #include > > > > int *_Nonnull f(int *_Nullable p) > > { > > if (!p) > > exit(1); > > return p; > >

Re: [cfe-dev] ISO C3X proposal: nonnull qualifier

2021-11-23 Thread Dmitri Gribenko via Gcc
Hi Alejandro, On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 1:34 PM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) via cfe-dev wrote: > First of all, > I see unnecessary (probably over-engineered) qualifiers: > > - _Null_unspecified seems to me the same as nothing. > If I didn't specify its nullability, > it's by definition unspecifie