This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: atomic_thread_fence() semantics
- From: Torvald Riegel <triegel at redhat dot com>
- To: Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>
- Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Mattias Rönnblom <hofors at lysator dot liu dot se>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 12:48:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: atomic_thread_fence() semantics
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx09.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=triegel at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5D0E74E4E6
- References: <351d54cc-4da1-dd20-aace-17c5b6244e1a@lysator.liu.se> <c5e41c53-ebae-6e8b-f276-9977eff37a5a@redhat.com> <alpine.LNX.2.20.13.1710191529180.21379@monopod.intra.ispras.ru>
On Thu, 2017-10-19 at 15:31 +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Oct 2017, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > On 19/10/17 12:58, Mattias Rönnblom wrote:
> > > Did I misunderstand the semantics of
> > > atomic_thread_fence+memory_order_release?
> >
> > No, you did not. This looks like a bug. Please report it.
>
> This bug is fixed on trunk, so should work from gcc-8 onwards (PR 80640).
The test case is invalid (I added some more detail as a comment on this
bug).