This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [libstdc++, testsuite] Add dg-require-thread-fence
- From: Christophe Lyon <christophe dot lyon at linaro dot org>
- To: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot gcc at googlemail dot com>
- Cc: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 09:31:51 +0100
- Subject: Re: [libstdc++, testsuite] Add dg-require-thread-fence
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAKdteObWfMso8e5R_eE=q=_ROD7nkmKphVM1=-zk_J1j+As3LA@mail.gmail.com> <20161020094008.GB2922@redhat.com> <CAKdteObZBtji1Yc+aEH0JHQRX2HcrgePrVTGUApzAmqPEiTM6A@mail.gmail.com> <20161020122040.GI2922@redhat.com> <A7E1F0A3-E50E-4A8E-BE67-15FA61633C6B@comcast.net> <20161020163417.GL2922@redhat.com> <CAKdteOYAwyeo9xWV8ji+J_Lh-TS2KS71z1eeLvVjLN91EK090w@mail.gmail.com> <341FEC7E-6E51-4EFC-AD91-D4B708DC7011@comcast.net> <CAKdteOacymxhSZVAwe8axFWr8nzrTHnc5d+pDOy=H9x=Vh23NA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJA7tRbeR-z-NZgk72odwPM=iUzQq5G18i8qMgvQ9hX7QOZL+w@mail.gmail.com>
On 14 November 2016 at 21:31, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 at 19:59, Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon@linaro.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On 14 November 2016 at 18:54, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>> > On Oct 21, 2016, at 1:00 AM, Christophe Lyon
>> > <christophe.lyon@linaro.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> So if we say that the current behaviour has to keep being the default,
>> >> so that users think about what they are really doing,
>> >
>> > Having a toolchain not work by default to force users to think, isn't a
>> > winning strategy.
>> >
>> > Everything should always, just work. Those things that don't, we should
>> > fix.
>> >
>> I tend to agree :-)
>>
>> Maybe Ramana changed his mind and would now no longer want to force
>> users to think?
>
>
>
> I haven't been able to deal with this thread having being in and out of the
> office for the past month thanks to various reasons. I am not back at my
> desk until next week for various reasons and ran out of time when I was at
> my desk to get back to this and actually fix the comments in newlib patch
> review.
>
>
> https://sourceware.org/ml/newlib/2015/msg00653.html
>
Thanks for the pointer, I missed it.
> This seems to have dropped between the cracks for various reasons but that
> was the approach I was going for. Some of the points made are taken, but
> having users not think about what they want to do about synchronisation and
> just provide empty stub functions which result in random run time crashes
> aren't correct in my book. If anyone is interested in moving forward I would
> suggest they take that approach or refine it further.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Ramana
>