[Bug lto/66815] Segfault with -lto and libitm

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66815 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 35936 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=35936action=edit reduced testcase The .tm_clone_table section is not generated with LTO enabled

[Bug rtl-optimization/64164] [4.9/5 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one less inlining level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164 --- Comment #27 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- I confirm that the patch fixes the performance problem that I had. I guess the patch is too complex to be backported. Thanks a lot Alexandre for the patch and to all

[Bug libitm/61594] ICE (assertion failure) in trans-mem.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- GCC 4.8.3 and 4.9.1 still fail with an ICE. Please adjust the version in the PR and change the status. (I did not test 4.8.4 and 4.9.2 but I can test it).

[Bug target/64579] New: __TM_end __builtin_tend failed to return transactional state

Priority: P3 Component: target Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: patrick.marlier at gmail dot com CC: bergner at gcc dot gnu.org Target: powerpc64 Created attachment 34433 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id

[Bug rtl-optimization/64164] [4.9/5 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one less inlining level

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64164 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- The regression starts from this commit: trunk@200103 commit f82f0ea592c2d78077e03f5a1a3b9b40751cc116 Author: law law@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 Date: Fri Jun 14

[Bug ipa/64164] New: [4.9/5 Regression] one more stack slot used due to one less inlining level

: normal Priority: P3 Component: ipa Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: patrick.marlier at gmail dot com Host: x86_64-linux-gnu Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Build: x86_64-linux-gnu Created attachment 34178 -- https

[Bug c++/59131] Compiler segfaults while generating code to save local variables in transactional section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59131 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 33098 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33098action=edit reduced testcase

[Bug c++/59131] Compiler segfaults while generating code to save local variables in transactional section

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59131 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- This bug seems to be the same as this one: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52173 Maybe the patch can be backported to 4.7 (hopefully without breaking anything?).

[Bug libitm/61594] ICE (assertion failure) in trans-mem.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 33058 -- https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=33058action=edit reduced testcase $ xgcc -Wall -Wextra -Wfatal-errors -O2 -fgnu-tm -S pr61594.c

[Bug libitm/61594] ICE (assertion failure) in trans-mem.c

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61594 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh

[Bug libitm/57855] passing unsafe function as transaction_safe function pointer does not generate error

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57855 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libitm/56801] Internal Compiler Error when compiling relaxed transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56801 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- Created attachment 30490 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=30490action=edit reduced testcase. I am now able to reproduce the ICE even with FSF 4.7.3

[Bug libitm/56801] Internal Compiler Error when compiling relaxed transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56801 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com --- This seems to be solved in 4.7.3 (I cannot reproduce). Mike, do you confirm that?

[Bug c/56572] GCC generates non-optimal transactional code when inlining nested transaction.

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56572 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libitm/55693] [4.8 Regression] libitm.c++/eh-1.C execution test fails on darwin from r193271

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55693 --- Comment #46 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2013-02-08 11:46:33 UTC --- Jack, I am sorry to be picky but are dummy functions still required in libgcc/config/darwin-crt-tm.c? I haven't access to a machine

[Bug middle-end/53850] [4.8 Regression] ICE: in expand_call_tm, at trans-mem.c:2289 with -fgnu-tm -O3

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53850 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh

[Bug c/47530] [trans-mem] tail call optimization problem with _ITM_commitTransaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-06-04 15:26:37 UTC --- Aldy, I have a testcase and a patch for this. I will submit it soon. Patrick

[Bug middle-end/47530] [trans-mem] tail call optimization problem with _ITM_commitTransaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-06-04 15:58:35 UTC --- Created attachment 27557 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27557 testcase (In reply to comment #10) Created attachment 27556

[Bug ada/53008] abort in _ITM_getTMCloneSafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008 --- Comment #8 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-05-22 15:58:53 UTC --- Aldy, Actually the problem is different that my first thought and it is a real bug. The problem is well described into the 'testcase for gcc

[Bug libitm/53008] abort in _ITM_getTMCloneSafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-05-15 22:23:54 UTC --- Created attachment 27412 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=27412 testcase for gcc testsuite The problem is not into libitm

[Bug libitm/53008] abort in _ITM_getTMCloneSafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53008 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libitm/52526] libitm: stuck in futex_wait

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52526 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-03-12 21:29:30 UTC --- Indeed, with your proposed patch, it fixes the problem. Thanks!

[Bug libitm/52526] New: libitm: stuck in futex_wait

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52526 Bug #: 52526 Summary: libitm: stuck in futex_wait Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.8.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug boehm-gc/52179] boehm-gc incompatible with aslr on darwin11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179 --- Comment #14 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-23 15:32:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) (In reply to comment #8) This change bootstraps fine with current gcc trunk on x86_64-apple-darwin11. It almost

[Bug boehm-gc/52179] boehm-gc incompatible with aslr on darwin11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179 --- Comment #16 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-23 15:49:26 UTC --- Created attachment 26735 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26735 proposal fix I have also started a patch (not tested at all

[Bug boehm-gc/52179] boehm-gc incompatible with aslr on darwin11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179 --- Comment #22 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-23 18:52:56 UTC --- (In reply to comment #21) (In reply to comment #20) Where do you want the second change made? Let me repeat myself: the code

[Bug boehm-gc/52179] boehm-gc incompatible with aslr on darwin11

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52179 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug libitm/52042] libitm.c/clone-1.c (all darwin) and libitm.c/stackundo.c (darwin 11) execution tests fail with -fpie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-08 03:38:24 UTC --- Proposed fix here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg00321.html All comments (and tests) are welcome! Thanks.

[Bug middle-end/52047] [trans-mem] ICE: SIGSEGV in execute_tm_mark (trans-mem.c:2270) with -O -fgnu-tm -fprefetch-loop-arrays

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52047 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug middle-end/52141] New: [trans-mem] ICE due to asm statement in trans-mem.c:expand_block_tm

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52141 Bug #: 52141 Summary: [trans-mem] ICE due to asm statement in trans-mem.c:expand_block_tm Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status:

[Bug middle-end/52142] New: [trans-mem] inlined transaction_pure functions are instrumented

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52142 Bug #: 52142 Summary: [trans-mem] inlined transaction_pure functions are instrumented Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug middle-end/52142] [trans-mem] inlined transaction_pure functions are instrumented

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52142 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-06 21:35:09 UTC --- Created attachment 26593 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26593 another testcase but with an asm statement the asm statement

[Bug libitm/52042] libitm.c/clone-1.c (all darwin) and libitm.c/stackundo.c (darwin 11) execution tests fail with -fpie

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=52042 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-02-07 04:02:08 UTC --- Created attachment 26595 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26595 patch that seems to work for clone-1.c Hi guys, In fact

[Bug lto/51916] FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/trans-mem-3 c_lto_trans-mem-3_0.o-c_lto_trans-mem-3_1.o link, -flto (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51916 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug rtl-optimization/51771] trans-mem: abnormal edges get lost or corrupted

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug other/51124] libitm failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-01-09 14:27:18 UTC --- libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on *86*-*-*. Fix proposed here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12

[Bug other/51124] libitm failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-01-09 15:22:45 UTC --- As posted here http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-12/msg01804.html, GCC explicitly change the calling convention to stdcall when variable

[Bug c++/48075] infinite loop when compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug middle-end/51252] FAIL: c-c++-common/tm/freq.c (internal compiler error)

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug other/51124] libitm failures

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124 --- Comment #14 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2012-01-09 16:52:47 UTC --- From http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Function-Attributes.html regparm (number) ... Functions that take a variable number of arguments

[Bug c/51696] New: [trans-mem] unsafe indirect function call in struct not properly displayed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51696 Bug #: 51696 Summary: [trans-mem] unsafe indirect function call in struct not properly displayed Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status:

[Bug lto/51698] New: [trans-mem] TM runtime and application with LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51698 Bug #: 51698 Summary: [trans-mem] TM runtime and application with LTO Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug middle-end/51516] New: [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51516 Bug #: 51516 Summary: [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal

[Bug lto/51280] ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-12-10 03:35:38 UTC --- Created attachment 26040 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26040 testcase for gnu-tm Well, I don't know why I can't reproduce

[Bug middle-end/51443] New: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm of trans-mem.c

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51443 Bug #: 51443 Summary: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm of trans-mem.c Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status:

[Bug c++/51347] [trans-mem] Segfault on templates with -O1 -fgnu-tm

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51347 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/48075] infinite loop when compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-12-03 03:53:02 UTC --- Created attachment 25976 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25976 reduced and without transaction relaxed I am hesitating to mark

[Bug middle-end/51273] ICE: vector VEC(inline_summary_t,base) index domain error, in inline_summary at ipa-inline.h:193 with -O -fgnu-tm, transaction_safe and overloaded contructor

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51273 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-11-28 01:06:09 UTC --- Proposed patch here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg02460.html Thanks for reporting. Patrick Marlier.

[Bug lto/51280] ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-11-23 18:53:04 UTC --- Created attachment 25904 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25904 testcase Of course this bug also affect openMP. (see testcase)

[Bug lto/51280] New: ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51280 Bug #: 51280 Summary: ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: 4.7.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED

[Bug other/51125] FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-3.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51125 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-11-19 17:42:20 UTC --- ** NOT RELATED TO BUG ** In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-11/msg00969.html, the patch shows changes to tree-ssa-reassoc.c but not committed

[Bug middle-end/51211] ICE: SIGSEGV in execute_tm_mark (trans-mem.c:2242) with -fgnu-tm -O -freorder-blocks -ftracer --param hot-bb-frequency-fraction=1 and __transaction_atomic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51211 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh

[Bug middle-end/51211] ICE: SIGSEGV in execute_tm_mark (trans-mem.c:2242) with -fgnu-tm -O -freorder-blocks -ftracer --param hot-bb-frequency-fraction=1 and __transaction_atomic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51211 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-11-18 22:52:44 UTC --- After looking at it. I guess the problem was in the tracer... The tracer tries to duplicate the BB where the __transaction_atomic is. Unfortunately

[Bug middle-end/51130] ICE: in create_tmp_var, at gimplify.c:468 with -fgnu-tm and __transaction_atomic

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51130 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug other/51125] FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-3.C

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51125 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/47606] [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm with O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW

[Bug lto/50964] New: [trans-mem] no support for LTO

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50964 Bug #: 50964 Summary: [trans-mem] no support for LTO Classification: Unclassified Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: enhancement Priority:

[Bug tree-optimization/48625] [trans-mem] Segfault in libitm when compiling with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-05-03 12:06:13 UTC --- The problem is that _ITM_beginTransaction shouldn't have caller save optimization because if the transaction aborts, registers will get random values

[Bug tree-optimization/48625] [trans-mem] Segfault in libitm when compiling with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||aldyh

[Bug tree-optimization/48625] [trans-mem] Segfault in libitm when compiling with -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48625 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC

[Bug c++/48075] [trans-mem] infinite loop when compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-03-31 07:26:24 UTC --- Created attachment 23833 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23833 same testcase but with errors removed (In reply to comment #1

[Bug c++/48074] [trans-mem] regular function used instead of clone in a transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48074 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal

[Bug c++/48074] New: [trans-mem] regular function used instead of clone in a transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48074 Summary: [trans-mem] regular function used instead of clone in a transaction Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/48075] New: [trans-mem] infinite loop when compiling

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48075 Summary: [trans-mem] infinite loop when compiling Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo:

[Bug c++/47952] [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952 --- Comment #12 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-03-10 14:19:35 UTC --- On 03/10/2011 12:01 AM, rth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: I suspect, but have not yet verified, that this is related to // Inhibit implicit

[Bug c++/47952] [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-03-10 04:31:30 UTC --- This issue has been filled here: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48021 There is also a reduced testcase. (If I remember well

[Bug c++/47952] [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952 --- Comment #6 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-03-08 10:17:58 UTC --- Created attachment 23582 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23582 testcase from glob2. With the committed patch and this attached

[Bug c++/48021] New: [trans-mem] call to an undefined clone

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48021 Summary: [trans-mem] call to an undefined clone Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo:

[Bug c/48023] New: [trans-mem] no-builtin flag and TM builtin like memset

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48023 Summary: [trans-mem] no-builtin flag and TM builtin like memset Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c

[Bug c++/47952] New: [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47952 Summary: [trans-mem] undefined reference to transaction clone Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/47905] New: [trans-mem] ipa_tm_decrement_clone_counts ICE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47905 Summary: [trans-mem] ipa_tm_decrement_clone_counts ICE Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug c++/47606] [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm with O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-15 15:59:37 UTC --- (In reply to comment #2) Created attachment 23351 [details] further reduced testcase Remark: In this testcase, you removed the __attribute__

[Bug c++/47746] New: [trans-mem] invalid conversion in gimple call, ICE verify_stmts failed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47746 Summary: [trans-mem] invalid conversion in gimple call, ICE verify_stmts failed Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/47747] New: [trans-mem] unsafe virtual function not properly displayed

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47747 Summary: [trans-mem] unsafe virtual function not properly displayed Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3

[Bug c/47530] [trans-mem] tail call optimization problem with _ITM_commitTransaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530 --- Comment #4 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-10 09:39:05 UTC --- I hope next time to come up with a 'perfect' patch! Thanks for the explanation and for the fix. :) Patrick.

[Bug c/47689] New: [trans-mem] function is cloned even if not used in transaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47689 Summary: [trans-mem] function is cloned even if not used in transaction Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: minor Priority: P3

[Bug c/47690] New: [trans-mem] ICE in verify_cgraph_node with O0

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47690 Summary: [trans-mem] ICE in verify_cgraph_node with O0 Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug c++/47606] New: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm with O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47606 Summary: [trans-mem] internal compiler error in expand_block_tm with O2 Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #10 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-04 13:54:30 UTC --- (In reply to comment #8) I will tackle the ECF_MALLOC comment separately. Should I open up a new bug report for this? or is it already on your

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-04 20:13:04 UTC --- Hi Aldy, On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 7:40 PM, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id

[Bug c++/47611] New: [trans-mem] memory allocated by default new/new_vec operator can be considered as transaction local

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611 Summary: [trans-mem] memory allocated by default new/new_vec operator can be considered as transaction local Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity:

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #15 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-04 20:30:15 UTC --- Filled a enhancement http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47611Yeah don't lose time

[Bug other/46567] [trans-mem] ipa_tm_decrement_clone_counts ICE at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46567 --- Comment #7 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-02-03 10:28:37 UTC --- Created attachment 23234 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23234 new testcase with O0 Here a reduced test case that raises this ICE

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED

[Bug c++/47573] New: [trans-mem] ICE in invoke_set_current_function_hook

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47573 Summary: [trans-mem] ICE in invoke_set_current_function_hook Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c/47530] New: [trans-mem] tail call optimization problem with _ITM_commitTransaction

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47530 Summary: [trans-mem] tail call optimization problem with _ITM_commitTransaction Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug other/46567] [trans-mem] ipa_tm_decrement_clone_counts ICE at -O2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46567 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-01-28 14:18:45 UTC --- Created attachment 23153 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23153 testcase with O0 With this testcase and -O0: $ gcc -fgnu-tm -O0

[Bug c/47520] New: [trans-mem] ICE Segmentation fault at 01

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47520 Summary: [trans-mem] ICE Segmentation fault at 01 Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: critical Priority: P3 Component: c AssignedTo:

[Bug c/47492] [trans-mem] Problem with memset() inside transaction_safe function

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47492 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-01-27 15:10:18 UTC --- Created attachment 23143 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23143 draft patch This patch makes it work but: (trans-mem.c

[Bug c++/47340] New: [trans-mem] problem with declaration of new operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47340 Summary: [trans-mem] problem with declaration of new operator Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++

[Bug c++/47340] [trans-mem] problem with declaration of new operator

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47340 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2011-01-18 13:47:21 UTC --- Created attachment 23019 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23019 testcase

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #3 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2010-12-23 15:45:15 UTC --- Actually, I was guessing that the patch was not intrusive. Wrong guess, play again... I should really spend more time on hacking gcc ;) Anyway

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #5 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2010-12-23 16:27:47 UTC --- Aldy. I think you should declare it 'transaction_safe' and not 'transaction_pure' since symbols in the libitm are binded to safe: _ZGTtnwm

[Bug c++/46941] [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 --- Comment #1 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2010-12-22 10:11:54 UTC --- Created attachment 22839 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22839 proposed patch to add safe attribute to new delete operators gcc

[Bug c++/46646] [trans-mem] __cxa_rethrow and __builtin_eh_pointer are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46646 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2010-12-14 11:13:15 UTC --- Created attachment 22751 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22751 testcase .ii I will try to make a shorter one soon.

[Bug c++/46941] New: [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941 Summary: [trans-mem] new/delete operator are unsafe Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: c++ AssignedTo:

[Bug c++/46653] [trans-mem] ICE with volatile int in transactional constructor using -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653 --- Comment #2 from Patrick Marlier patrick.marlier at gmail dot com 2010-11-29 13:34:36 UTC --- Created attachment 22563 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22563 testcase ICE with volatile int in transactional constructor using

[Bug c++/46714] New: [trans-mem] built-in aliased to undefined symbol with -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46714 Summary: [trans-mem] built-in aliased to undefined symbol with -O1 Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

[Bug c++/46653] New: [trans-mem] ICE with volatile int in transactional constructor using -O1

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46653 Summary: [trans-mem] ICE with volatile int in transactional constructor using -O1 Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority:

[Bug c++/46654] New: [trans-mem] volatile objects must not be allowed in a safe statement

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46654 Summary: [trans-mem] volatile objects must not be allowed in a safe statement Product: gcc Version: trans-mem Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3

  1   2   >