On Jan 21, 2015, at 6:41 AM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote:
But I am somewhat tired of editing hundreds of files for today. Why
did I write so many tests, stupid!?
:-) We appreciate all your efforts and all your tests.
On Jan 21, 2015, at 3:17 AM, Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi Jakub Mike,
test.c:3:6: internal compiler error: in expand_TSAN_FUNC_EXIT, at
internal-fn.c:243
void step (int i)
It looks like your patches shot each other down..
Ah, I’d use the phrase one-step forward.
Hi Jakub Mike,
test.c:3:6: internal compiler error: in expand_TSAN_FUNC_EXIT, at
internal-fn.c:243
void step (int i)
It looks like your patches shot each other down..
How about this, maybe with a compile-time test of the step function in
c-c++common/tsan?
Thanks
Bernd.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:31:57, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:17:51PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
test.c:3:6: internal compiler error: in expand_TSAN_FUNC_EXIT, at
internal-fn.c:243
void step (int i)
It looks like your patches shot each other down..
How about this,
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:17:51PM +0100, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
test.c:3:6: internal compiler error: in expand_TSAN_FUNC_EXIT, at
internal-fn.c:243
void step (int i)
It looks like your patches shot each other down..
How about this, maybe with a compile-time test of the step
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:49:21, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
[text-only]
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov
Hi,
On Tue, 20 Jan 2015 17:47:29, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
We discussed two alternatives to sleep:
1. step function, optionally with sched_yield to make it somewhat less busy
waiting:
__attribute__((no_sanitize_thread))
void step (int i)
{
while (__atomic_load_n (serial,
Well, OK, it is actually not easier to write tests with step function
as compared to barrier.
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:49:21,
Hi,
On Wed, 21 Jan 2015 12:58:27, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
The step approach looks better to me at first sight.
Busy waiting looks like a weak argument in this context. It's
absolutely non performance-critical and a yield or usleep(10) will
solve it more than sufficiently.
I will check how
Hi,
On 21 Jan 2015 17:57:10, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] Fix parameters of __tsan_vptr_update
To: bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
CC: konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com; mikest...@comcast.net;
k...@google.com; ja...@redhat.com; richard.guent...@gmail.com;
gcc-patches
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
On 21 Jan 2015 17:57:10, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Subject: Re: [PING] [PATCH] Fix parameters of __tsan_vptr_update
To: bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de
CC: konstantin.s.serebry...@gmail.com; mikest...@comcast.net;
k
Refactored tests in clang to use barrier_init/wait:
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revisionrevision=226659
There are still few sleep call, like when we need to wait for a thread
to exit (there is really no point to insert barrier_wait); or when we
need to wait for a thread to _block_
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:49:21, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
[text-only]
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov
[text-only]
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote:
I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if
they work reliably!).
Let me state it more forcefully.
You don't
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:43:39PM +0400, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
Hi Bernd,
Yes, that email is marked in my inbox. Sorry for not answering earlier.
I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if
they work reliably!).
Sleeps by definition should not be reliable, not to
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 8:42 PM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:25:42, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
This is just a copy from llvm repo, right?
Looks good to me.
Thanks.
Yes I found these test case in the llvm tree, and just adapted them
to work in
Hi,
On Mon, 19 Jan 2015 18:49:21, Konstantin Serebryany wrote:
[text-only]
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Mike Stump mikest...@comcast.net wrote:
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote:
I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if
On Jan 19, 2015, at 12:43 AM, Dmitry Vyukov dvyu...@google.com wrote:
I can't really make my mind on this. I would mildly prefer sleep's (if
they work reliably!).
Let me state it more forcefully. sleeps are not now, nor in the history of
computing ever been a synchronization primitive, except
On 01/16/15 00:17, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
Hi,
I think I should ping for this patch now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00599.html
note that by mistake the change log referenced sanitizer.c instead of
sanitizer.def, consider that fixed on my local copy.
That patch is fine.
This is just a copy from llvm repo, right?
Looks good to me.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:17 AM, Bernd Edlinger
bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de wrote:
Hi,
I think I should ping for this patch now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00599.html
note that by mistake the change log
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015 21:25:42, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
This is just a copy from llvm repo, right?
Looks good to me.
Thanks.
Yes I found these test case in the llvm tree, and just adapted them
to work in the gcc test suite.
However, here is a small tweak in the positive test:
That is we now
Hi,
I think I should ping for this patch now:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-01/msg00599.html
note that by mistake the change log referenced sanitizer.c instead of
sanitizer.def, consider that fixed on my local copy.
Thanks
Bernd.
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2015 14:15:54 +0100
Hi,
On
22 matches
Mail list logo
