This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ 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: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
Cc: Alexander Terekhov <alexander dot terekhov at gmail dot com>,Peter Dimov <pdimov at mmltd dot net>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 14:48:24 +0100
Subject: Re: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
References: <4370AEC8.4020504@suse.de> <007801c5e499$be267dd0$6401a8c0@pdimov2> <e52efbe10511090354w5c9785ccl29cfac0b0fbbc120@mail.gmail.com> <4371E880.70707@suse.de>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

>    FAIL: 22_locale/locale/cons/12658_thread-1.cc execution test
>    FAIL: 22_locale/locale/cons/12658_thread-2.cc execution test
>
Don't pay too much attention to those, for now. Likely are due to a MT
bug affecting old glibcs
(http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-hacker/2004-07/msg00034.html)

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
  - From: Peter Dimov
- Re: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
  - From: Alexander Terekhov
- Re: Memory barriers vs lock/unlock
  - From: Paolo Carlini

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