From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31423 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2014 15:11:18 -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 31367 invoked by uid 55); 5 Feb 2014 15:11:15 -0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" 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 15:11:00 -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: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 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/msg00439.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59305 --- Comment #15 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- > --- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe --- > (In reply to ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE from comment #13) [...] > 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). I don't think so: on identical hardware, the test performs reasonably well on Solaris 11, but is sometimes slow as molasses on Solaris 10. Rather looks like a libc bug there. Rainer