From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26646 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2014 15:06:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26574 invoked by uid 48); 5 Feb 2014 15:06:04 -0000 From: "iains at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/59305] [4.9 Regression] gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c fails with WARNING: program timed out on x86_64-apple-darwin13 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:06:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: iains at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00437.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe --- (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #13) > > --- Comment #12 from Iain Sandoe --- > [...] > > Do you repeat the findings we see on Darwin, where a heavily loaded system does > > not exhibit the slow-down? > > no, I see it both on unloaded and heavily loaded systems. Even on an > idle system, the runtime varies by a magnitude or more. so the open question is whether there's a fault in the fall-back solution - or whether it's fundamentally incapable of delivering reasonable performance (at least on some non-linux platforms).