[Bug other/51830] New: FAIL: libitm.c/mem(cpy|set)-1.c execution test

["dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51830

             Bug #: 51830
           Summary: FAIL: libitm.c/mem(cpy|set)-1.c execution test
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: unknown
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: other
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: dominiq@lps.ens.fr
                CC: aldyh@gcc.gnu.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
                    iains@gcc.gnu.org, patrick.marlier@gmail.com
            Target: *86*-*-*


>From pr51124 (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124#c9 ):

libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and memset-1.c are still failing in 32 bit mode on
*86*-*-*. From
http://glutton.geoffk.org/HEAD/native-logsum/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libitm/testsuite/libitm.log.gzip
, the failure is

libitm: pr_undoLogCode not supported
FAIL: libitm.c/memcpy-1.c execution test

I also see that on x86_64-apple-darwin10. This comes from line 163 of
libitm/beginend.cc

 // ??? pr_undoLogCode is not properly defined in the ABI. Are barriers
  // omitted because they are not necessary (e.g., a transaction on thread-
  // local data) or because the compiler thinks that some kind of global
  // synchronization might perform better?
  if (unlikely(prop & pr_undoLogCode))
    GTM_fatal("pr_undoLogCode not supported");

See comments #11 to #14 in pr51124 for a discussion.