This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [4.7,trans-mem] Summary of unsolved known bugs
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Patrick Marlier <patrick dot marlier at gmail dot com>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jan 2012 11:20:08 +0100
- Subject: Re: [4.7,trans-mem] Summary of unsolved known bugs
- References: <4EEA178B.firstname.lastname@example.org>
stage3 is over, so let's have a look at the open bugs again...
Looking at Patrick's old list, the following bugs are still open
> [trans-mem] save/restore of thread-local data in nested txns is missing
Aldy, you wanted to take a look. Were you able to reproduce?
I haven't looked at it in a long time...
> * [trans-mem] problem with TM clone aliases
> Leads to add _ITM_getTMCloneOrIrrevocable in a __transaction_atomic.
> -> Fix proposed.
Aldy, has this been fixed? You said you were waiting for review.
> * ICE when lto1 does not have -fgnu-tm and object file uses TM
> Probably should be closed:
> * libitm failures
Can be closed? the static ctor part is
> * infinite loop when compiling
Not really related to us. ICE on invalid.
Any other remaining issues? Everyone, what about the "variadic argument
of _ITM_beginTransaction" that Patrick reported?
Things we still can do:
- install.texi: libitm disable/enable, needs C++ to be enabled
4.7 issues, we will look at these again for 4.8:
- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51752 publication safety
- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51771 setjmp hack, fix
abnormal edges instead
- (needs no PR) STM not tuned
- (no PR yet, but an early test case): attribute (safe/unsafe/...) rules
are not enforced
- (no PR yet) goes irrevocable early
- (no PR yet) we don't save/restore FP state on txn begin/restart
- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51173 allow static ctors
Were do we document these? In the Wiki, and copy them to the release
notes later, or what's the proper procedure here?
For libitm, I have one patch pending review (filter out undos to
libitm's stack) and want to work on a multiple-lock write-through today.
Plus perhaps some cache miss tuning. I heard that new patches might be
allowed for libitm even though we're in stage4.