http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
torvald at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Component|tree-optimization |c++
--- Comment #12 from torv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #9 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:55:27 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, amacleod at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
> 15:50:13 U
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #10 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:56:30 UTC ---
On 03/12/12 10:45, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
>> Just to get this straight, am I to assume that the default code
>> generation for GCC is a single threaded environment? I just
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
15:50:13 UTC ---
We can still perform store motion out of a loop, we just can't put the store on
a path which is executed if the loop isn't executed.
In this case, we actually made the code *slower*.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #7 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:45:39 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at redhat dot com wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
> 15:42:45 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #6 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:42:45 UTC ---
On 03/12/12 10:32, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
es, but still cared about introducing write
>> data races. This test case has both. I don't understand why we would allow
>> intro
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #5 from rguenther at suse dot de
2012-03-12 15:32:48 UTC ---
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
>
> --- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
> 15:29:06 UTC
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #4 from Aldy Hernandez 2012-03-12
15:29:06 UTC ---
> No, we don't want to fix this for 4.7 as this is not a regression.
>
> Yes, LIM only avoids introducing traps, not data-races. This was discussed
> in the past already, btw, and
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #3 from Andrew Macleod 2012-03-12
15:24:35 UTC ---
Created attachment 26881
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26881
Testcase for simulate-threads
I've modified the testcase so that it runs in gcc.dg/simulate-thread
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2012-03-12
15:01:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Richi, is this something that should also be fixed for 4.7 as well? There is
> a
> write to g_2 that is introduced on paths that did not have it. So th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52558
Aldy Hernandez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
11 matches
Mail list logo
