http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
Manuel Holtgrewe changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47460
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Holtgrewe 2011-01-25
16:53:23 UTC ---
Sorry for posting this here again, but could somebody clarify the following,
nevertheless and if this is expected behaviour, close the bug as invalid? In
the future, I'll first try
: tree-optimization
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: manuel.holtgr...@fu-berlin.de
I get the unexpected (for me) inconsistent behaviour of the
__sync_fetch_and_add builtin with the program below. My main confusion is
around the missing __sync_val_compare_and_swap_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47433
--- Comment #3 from Manuel Holtgrewe 2011-01-24
12:56:16 UTC ---
I agree, that there are no obvious problems with std::swap_ranges.
Is anything specified in the standard in this direction?
++
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: manuel.holtgr...@fu-berlin.de
The parallel libstdc++ calls std::swap explicitely. To my knowledge, this
disables the user to specify his own, possibly more efficient swap routine.
This is especially severe in parallel sorting and partitioning
