From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5800 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2015 20:20:18 -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 5518 invoked by uid 48); 11 Feb 2015 20:20:12 -0000 From: "torvald at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/64930] [5 regression] FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/atomic-p7.c scan-assembler-times isync 12 Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 20:20:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: torvald at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.0 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: 2015-02/txt/msg01253.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64930 --- Comment #5 from torvald at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #3) > Created attachment 34731 [details] > gcc5-pr64930.patch > > Thus I'm proposing this untested patch. I think expecting the consume-to-acquire promotion is the right thing to do (I haven't tested the patch though). The consume specification in the standard has issues, and based on the discussions in ISO C++ SG1, it seems unlikely that it can or will be fixed. Thus, I believe the promotion will stay with us forever. Therefore, using an XFAIL doesn't seem right to me.