https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25830
--- Comment #7 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Nick Clifton :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:e6cbe9654d14588f8bcaf267730fa4c694216eee
commit r10-7841-ge6cbe9654d14588f8bcaf267730fa4c694216eee
Author: Stephen Casner
Date: Tu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25830
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25830
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |WAITING
--- Comment #5 from Domin
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25830
--- Comment #4 from Janne Blomqvist 2011-04-25 16:41:26
UTC ---
Some writings arguing that POSIX locking is more or less fundamentally broken:
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking.html
http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/locking2.html
http://
--- Comment #3 from burnus at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-11-20 15:52 ---
Other compilers have the SHARE= specifier for OPEN and INQUIRE, e.g. Intel or
HP. I'm not sure it is needed, but one could consider supporting it as well
when implementing this option.
http://www.intel.com/software/p
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 23:33 ---
Coonfirmed.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCO
--- Comment #1 from jb at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-17 22:07 ---
Change severity to enhancement.
--
jb at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Sev
