Hi all,
expand_atomic_load in optabs.c tries to expand a wide atomic load using an
atomic_compare_and_swap
with the comment saying that sometimes a redundant harmless store may be
performed.
Is the store really valid if the memory is read-only?
I've been looking at implementing a similar compa
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:34:15AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> expand_atomic_load in optabs.c tries to expand a wide atomic load using an
> atomic_compare_and_swap
> with the comment saying that sometimes a redundant harmless store may be
> performed.
> Is the store really valid if the memory
Status
==
The GCC 5 branch is open again for regression and documentation fixes.
Quality Data
Priority # Change from last report
--- ---
P10
P2 138 - 9
P3 20 + 7
P4
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 12:03 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 10:34:15AM +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> > expand_atomic_load in optabs.c tries to expand a wide atomic load using an
> > atomic_compare_and_swap
> > with the comment saying that sometimes a redundant harmless store
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> And that would be fine, IMO. If you can't even load atomically, doing
> something useful with this type will be hard except in special cases.
> Also, doing a CAS (compare-and-swap) and thus potentially bringing in
> the cache line i
Hi Jakub, Torvald,
On 03/06/16 13:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
And that would be fine, IMO. If you can't even load atomically, doing
something useful with this type will be hard except in special cases.
Also, doing a CAS (compare-and-
Woon yung Liu writes:
> On Wednesday, June 1, 2016 5:45 AM, Richard Henderson
> wrote:
> > This is almost always incorrect, and certainly before reload.
> > You need to use gen_lowpart. There are examples in the code
>
> > fragments that I sent the other week.
>
> The problem is that gen_lowpa
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 14:32 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> > And that would be fine, IMO. If you can't even load atomically, doing
> > something useful with this type will be hard except in special cases.
> > Also, doing a CAS (compa
On Fri, 2016-06-03 at 13:46 +0100, Kyrill Tkachov wrote:
> Hi Jakub, Torvald,
>
> On 03/06/16 13:32, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 02:26:09PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> >> And that would be fine, IMO. If you can't even load atomically, doing
> >> something useful with this
The GNU Compiler Collection version 5.4 has been released.
GCC 5.4 is a bug-fix release from the GCC 5 branch
containing important fixes for regressions and serious bugs in
GCC 5.3 with more than 147 bugs fixed since the previous release.
This release is available from the FTP servers listed at:
On 06/03/2016 05:32 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
A change from wide CAS to locking would be an ABI change I suppose, but
it could also be considered a necessary bugfix if we don't want to write
to read-only memory. Does this affect anything but i686?
Also x86_64 (for 128-bit atomics), clearly also
On 06/03/2016 05:54 AM, Woon yung Liu wrote:
The problem is that gen_lowpart() doesn't seem to support casting to other
modes of the same size.
It certainly does. The only place you get into trouble with gen_lowpart is
with CONST_INT, which is mode-less.
But I am already doubting that I w
Hi Guys,
Well now that GCC 6 is out lets see what new features have started
to appear in the toolchain:
Several new warning options have been added to GCC:
* The option -Wno-duplicate-decl-specifier has been added to
generate warnings whenever a declaration contains duplicate const
Hello all,
Yesterday I managed to successfully build GCC and all of the
accompanying languages that it supports by default (Ada, C, C++,
Fortran, Go, Java, Objective-C, Objective-C++, and Link-time
Optimization (LTO)). I did not build JIT support because I have not
herd if it is stable or not.
Anyw
14 matches
Mail list logo
