https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|8.4 |8.5
--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Priority|P3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
--- Comment #6 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Jan Hubicka from comment #5)
> Also I think it is violation of C++ memory model since we introduce
> load+store pair where there was none before?
No because a cannot be accessed by another threa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
--- Comment #5 from Jan Hubicka ---
Also I think it is violation of C++ memory model since we introduce load+store
pair where there was none before?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=93271
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Target|i?86-linux-gnu
