http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #18 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
09:32:53 UTC ---
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz.ch wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
>
> --- Comment #15 from Joost VandeVon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #19 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
09:38:13 UTC ---
On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
ethz.ch wrote:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
>
> --- Comment #16 from Joost VandeVon
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55828
Bug #: 55828
Summary: problem with access to static method from lambda in
another method
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.3
Status: UN
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55824
--- Comment #2 from Tobias Burnus 2012-12-29
10:12:46 UTC ---
>From trans-stmt.c's gfc_trans_allocate
/* Evaluate expr3 just once if not a variable. */
...
&& code->expr3->ts.type == BT_CLASS
&& code->expr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #20 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
10:13:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 12:23 AM, Joost.VandeVondele at mat dot
> ethz.ch wrote:
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
> >
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55561
--- Comment #21 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
10:21:06 UTC ---
It is a known issue http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362#c7
and Jakub said it's safe. I am not that sure.
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 2:13 PM, dvyukov at google dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
--- Comment #10 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
10:28:06 UTC ---
ThreadSanitizer says the same:
Testcase:
!$OMP PARALLEL PRIVATE(j)
j=OMP_GET_THREAD_NUM()
! no warnings without the dynamic schedule
!$OMP DO SCHEDULE(DYNAMIC,2)
DO i=1,10
ENDDO
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-29
12:09:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> gomp_ptrlock_get() function is not thread-safe. It's not only about atomicity,
> it's also about memory ordering. Thread that calls gomp_ptrlock_set
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
--- Comment #12 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
12:31:02 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> (In reply to comment #10)
> > gomp_ptrlock_get() function is not thread-safe. It's not only about
> > atomicity,
> > it's also about memory orderi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55827
--- Comment #5 from Steve Kargl
2012-12-29 16:04:45 UTC ---
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:02:43PM +, kargl at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
>
> Index: class.c
> ===
> --- class.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55827
--- Comment #6 from Mikael Morin 2012-12-29
16:40:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Although I agree with Mikael that gfortran should probably
> not have a NULL symtree by the time we reach gfc_conv_function_expr,
> the above patch
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54711
Gerald Pfeifer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gerald at pfeifer dot com
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55707
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ktietz at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
--- Comment #13 from Andrew Pinski 2012-12-29
21:32:06 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> ws = gomp_ptrlock_get (&ws->next_ws);
This is really just:
ws = gomp_ptrlock_get (ws+offsetof(next_ws));
So there are no loads there. This
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40362
--- Comment #14 from Dmitry Vyukov 2012-12-29
22:36:11 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> (In reply to comment #12)
> > ws = gomp_ptrlock_get (&ws->next_ws);
>
> This is really just:
> ws = gomp_ptrlock_get (ws+offsetof(next_ws));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55763
Harald Anlauf changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||anlauf at gmx dot de
--- Commen
16 matches
Mail list logo
