This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
- From: Tomash Brechko <tomash dot brechko at gmail dot com>
- To: Andi Kleen <andi at firstfloor dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:14:06 +0300
- Subject: Re: Optimization of conditional access to globals: thread-unsafe?
- References: <e2e108260710260705s170a7c82udb0c9db26a408d84@mail.gmail.com.suse.lists.egcs> <18210.795.425145.46885@zebedee.pink.suse.lists.egcs> <e2e108260710270510j56fe188dkabe070f4c6bcbe0a@mail.gmail.com.suse.lists.egcs> <87hckcpvp5.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de.suse.lists.egcs> <e2e108260710270607u6798af5em6467bd38788f48cd@mail.gmail.com.suse.lists.egcs> <87abq4ofym.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de.suse.lists.egcs> <e2e108260710280631i405e4fd8te51ff7aa2ebece23@mail.gmail.com.suse.lists.egcs> <472492F8.90700@adacore.com.suse.lists.egcs> <20071028141821.GA4898@moonlight.home.suse.lists.egcs> <p73ejfe3zm9.fsf@bingen.suse.de>
On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 12:54:22 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-10/msg00607.html for a test case
> that shows where it can go horrible wrong (optimized code significantly
> slower than unoptimized code) Admittedly it is a constructed
> one, but I don't think it is that unrealistic.
Thanks. I had to change %Lu to %lu, and the example shows the point
when run multiple times.
--
Tomash Brechko