public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/47409] volatile struct member bug
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2013 14:46:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-47409-4-L2e0nswxXS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-47409-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47409
--- Comment #21 from Francesco Zappa Nardelli <francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #20)
> > However the code I reported in bug 58409, which has been marked duplicate of
> > this bug, still exhibits the incorrect reordering of volatile accesses. It
> > thus seems to me that either bug 58409 is not a duplicate of this one, or
> > the fix is incomplete.
>
> It is a duplicate of this one because it is about a volatile struct member
> in a not volatile object g_3[1][1][1]. And it is about the aggregate
> assignment to that struct.
Agreed. What I don't understand is the fact that the commits that led to the
recent gcc svn trunk
gcc version 4.9.0 20130912 (experimental) (GCC)
solve the problem with the code in comment 16, but do not prevent the
reordering of volatile writes described in bug 58409. As a consequence, it
seems to me that gcc does not yet implement a correct semantics for accesses to
volatile struct members in non volatile objects. Am I missing something or
another fix is to be expected? Thanks.
-francesco
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-13 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-01-22 4:13 [Bug c/47409] New: " regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2011-01-22 5:08 ` [Bug c/47409] " regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2011-01-24 16:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-24 16:53 ` regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2011-01-24 16:57 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-25 2:17 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2011-01-25 11:11 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-01-25 16:24 ` regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2011-01-25 17:28 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2013-01-30 4:36 ` regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2013-01-30 11:39 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-30 11:44 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-01-30 23:24 ` regehr at cs dot utah.edu
2013-02-06 11:47 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-06 15:00 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-07 1:42 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2013-07-09 8:48 ` francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com
2013-09-13 9:38 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-13 9:52 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-13 10:38 ` francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com
2013-09-13 11:51 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-09-13 14:46 ` francesco.zappa.nardelli at gmail dot com [this message]
2014-02-16 13:13 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
2021-08-05 23:52 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-07-17 21:00 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-01-18 6:02 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-47409-4-L2e0nswxXS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).