This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?

From: Samuel Tardieu <sam at rfc1149 dot net>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:47:53 +0200
Subject: Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
References: <e2e108260710260634q7a291337s6e66dfa25f28b68a@mail.gmail.com> <e2e108260710260705s170a7c82udb0c9db26a408d84@mail.gmail.com> <18210.795.425145.46885@zebedee.pink> <47220475.4000703@adacore.com> <2007-10-26-17-59-37+trackit+sam@rfc1149.net>

>>>>> "Sam" == Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> writes:

Sam> In the following example, is the access to "Shared" considered
Sam> unsynchronized even though what looks like a proper lock is used
Sam> around it?

Call to Always_Unlock was incorrect in the previous example, a fixed
one exhibiting the bug is now at http://pastebin.com/f1bc7ba32

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

References:
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Bart Van Assche
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
  - From: Samuel Tardieu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]