https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|FIXED |INVALID
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
felix.ospald at gmx dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #11 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
I can confirm that the bug still exists for the trunk version (rev 221721) of
gcc.
So as mentioned above it is very likely the kernel bug.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #10 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
gcc still compiles, but I think I found the answer here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24219263/openmp-on-a-2-socket-system
"The problem was due to a bug in Linux Kernel kernel 3.11.10-7.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #9 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
Hi,
I attached an output from
strace ./main 2>&1 | tee log
Maybe this helps. I see that there are some futex EAGAIN errors. I'm not sure
if this is a problem (I also get them on my notebook).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #8 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
Created attachment 35156
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35156&action=edit
strace output
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #7 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #6)
> I ran for 2836 iterations with the trunk GCC and aarch64 which has a very
> weak memory ordering and did not run into a single failure.
This is what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
I ran for 2836 iterations with the trunk GCC and aarch64 which has a very weak
memory ordering and did not run into a single failure.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #5 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Note rand () is not thread-safe, so calling it from multiple threads
> concurrently is undefined-behavior.
Actually looking into glibc sources, you can notice th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #4 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3)
> Can't reproduce here, with neither 4.8 nor 4.9. But tested just on 16
> threads box (both with argument 16 and 32).
With only 16 threads I also cann
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Can't reproduce here, with neither 4.8 nor 4.9. But tested just on 16 threads
box (both with argument 16 and 32).
Note rand () is not thread-safe, so calling it from multiple threads
concurrently is undefin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #2 from felix.ospald at gmx dot de ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1)
> I cannot reproduce this on an AARCH64 target with 48 cores with the trunk.
I do not have the trunk installed. What do you suggest? Should I compile m
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski ---
I cannot reproduce this on an AARCH64 target with 48 cores with the trunk.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65589
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Version|unknown |4.8.1
Severity|blocker
15 matches
Mail list logo
