[CCing Ian as libgcc maintainer] On Wed, 1 Nov 2023 10:14:37 +0000 "Zhu, Lipeng" <lipeng....@intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Lipeng, > > > > > > >>> Sure, as your comments, in the patch V6, I added 3 test cases with > > > >>> OpenMP to test different cases in concurrency respectively: > > > >>> 1. find and create unit very frequently to stress read lock and write > > > >>> lock. > > > >>> 2. only access the unit which exist in cache to stress read lock. > > > >>> 3. access the same unit in concurrency. > > > >>> For the third test case, it also help to find a bug: When unit > > > >>> can't be found in cache nor unit list in read phase, then threads > > > >>> will try to acquire write lock to insert the same unit, this will > > > >>> cause duplicate key > > > >> error. > > > >>> To fix this bug, I get the unit from unit list once again before > > > >>> insert in write > > > >> lock. > > > >>> More details you can refer the patch v6. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Could you help to review this update? I really appreciate your > > > >> assistance. > > > >> > > > > > > > Could you help to review this update? Any concern will be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > Fortran parts are OK (I think I wrote that already), we need somebody > > > for the non-Fortran parts. > > > > > Hi Thomas, > > > > Thanks for your response. Very appreciate for your patience and help. > > > > > Jakub, could you maybe take a look? > > > > > > Best regards > > > > > > Thomas > > > > Hi Jakub, > > > > Can you help to take a look at the change for libgcc part that added several > > rwlock macros in libgcc/gthr-posix.h? > > > > Hi Jakub, > > Could you help to review this, any comment will be greatly appreciated. Latest version is at https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20230818031818.2161842-1-lipeng....@intel.com/ > > > Best Regards, > > Lipeng Zhu >
