https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Alexey Lapshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|UNCONFIRMED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Lapshin ---
Please note : that is not the case of using correct -march. That is old code
compatibility issue. Check the scenario on that page :
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/LIbrary
It is OK to compile the us
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70191
Alexey Lapshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|INVALID |FIXED
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshi
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
Target Milestone: ---
__atomic_always_lock_free reports TRUE for 16-byte data object.
inlined implementation uses lock-free
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #7 from Alexey Lapshin ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Author: redi
> Date: Thu Mar 26 19:27:02 2015
> New Revision: 221703
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221703&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR libst
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Lapshin ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> This does seem like a bug.
What is a proper behavior for G++ in this case ?
should it always align std::atomic object of size 8 at 8 bytes ?
Or should G++ jus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshin ---
The similar test case for C does not fail. gcc aligns this 8-bytes structure at
8-bytes so inlined lock-free code is working correctly.
Another thing is that this bug exist on x86 also. lock free code on x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65146
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshin ---
if alignment of atomic object less then it`s size then it could not be
lock-free on x86 32. If that object would split across cache lines then the
operation would not be atomic.
At the same time compiler re
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65145
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshin ---
Hi Joseph,
Could you help me with a link to the correct description of atomic ABI,
which in fact used by gcc/g++, please ?
Thank you, Alexey.
: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
Following test case caused Bus Error on SPARC :
$ cat bus_error.cpp
#include
#include
typedef struct {
char c[8];
} struct8;
typedef struct {
char c[1];
std::atomic< struct8 &
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62253
Alexey Lapshin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.lapshin at oracle dot
com
++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
According to the documentation -
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/UnalignedPolicy alignment of atomic
object should match it`s size.
Alignment in the test case below does not match with
Component: c
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
Alignment of single _Atomic object match with documentation :
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/UnalignedPolicy .
Alignment of _Atomic structure member does not match.
~/atomic_test
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
The size of atomic object does not match with documentation -
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/UnalignedPolicy specifically :
"GCC 4.9 will provide an atomic type attribute which can be s
14 matches
Mail list logo
