* [Bug c++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
@ 2015-02-20 22:11 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2015-03-20 22:15 ` [Bug libstdc++/65147] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: joseph at codesourcery dot com @ 2015-02-20 22:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> ---
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015, alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com wrote:
> According to the documentation -
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Atomic/GCCMM/UnalignedPolicy alignment of atomic
> object should match it`s size.
> Alignment in the test case below does not match with documentation.
Not in itself a bug to fail to follow preliminary plans. *But*:
> This behavior also differs from gcc. Gcc aligns 8-bytes objects to 8-bytes.
Differences between C and C++ atomics might be a bug - there may be intent
for them to be ABI-compatible (although that didn't get implemented),
unlike other aspects of the early plans you point to where intent changed
over the course of implementation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
2015-02-20 22:11 ` [Bug c++/65147] " joseph at codesourcery dot com
@ 2015-03-20 22:15 ` jason at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-23 18:07 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (12 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jason at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-20 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keywords| |ABI
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2015-03-20
CC| |jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |jwakely.gcc at gmail dot com
Ever confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This does seem like a bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
2015-02-20 22:11 ` [Bug c++/65147] " joseph at codesourcery dot com
2015-03-20 22:15 ` [Bug libstdc++/65147] " jason at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-23 18:07 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
2015-03-23 18:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com @ 2015-03-23 18:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #3 from Alexey Lapshin <alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com> ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #2)
> This does seem like a bug.
What is a proper behavior for G++ in this case ?
should it always align std::atomic object of size 8 at 8 bytes ?
Or should G++ just never inline implementation for atomic routine ?
(see bug https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149 when implementation
of atomic routine was inlined for incorrectly aligned atomic object, which
leads to BusError)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-23 18:07 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
@ 2015-03-23 18:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-26 19:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-23 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I think std::atomic<T> should increase the alignment of its T member. That will
have the advantage of being layout-compatible with _Atomic T.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-23 18:36 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-26 19:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-26 20:24 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-26 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Mar 26 19:27:02 2015
New Revision: 221703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221703&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR libstdc++/62259
PR libstdc++/65147
* include/std/atomic (atomic<T>): Increase alignment for types with
the same size as one of the integral types.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc: Adjust dg-error line number.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/62259.cc: New.
Added:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/62259.cc
- copied, changed from r221701,
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
Modified:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/std/atomic
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-26 19:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-26 20:24 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-27 15:58 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (8 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-26 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed for gcc5.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-26 20:24 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-27 15:58 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
2015-03-27 19:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com @ 2015-03-27 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #7 from Alexey Lapshin <alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> Author: redi
> Date: Thu Mar 26 19:27:02 2015
> New Revision: 221703
>
> URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221703&root=gcc&view=rev
> Log:
> PR libstdc++/62259
> PR libstdc++/65147
> * include/std/atomic (atomic<T>): Increase alignment for types with
> the same size as one of the integral types.
> * testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc: Adjust dg-error line number.
> * testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/62259.cc: New.
>
> Added:
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/62259.cc
> - copied, changed from r221701,
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
> Modified:
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/std/atomic
> trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
It looks like this fix makes alignment of atomic object to be the same as
alignment of integral non-atomic object of the same size.
The gcc behavior is different it makes alignment of atomic objects of sizes
1,2,4,8,16 to match with size :
G++ :
$ cat all.cc
#include <atomic>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
char c[16];
} S16;
int main ( void ) {
std::atomic<char> ac;
std::atomic<short> as;
std::atomic<long> al;
std::atomic<long long> all;
std::atomic<S16> a16;
printf("\n sizeof(ac) %d alignof(ac) %d", sizeof(ac), alignof(ac) );
printf("\n sizeof(as) %d alignof(as) %d", sizeof(as), alignof(as) );
printf("\n sizeof(al) %d alignof(al) %d", sizeof(al), alignof(al) );
printf("\n sizeof(all) %d alignof(all) %d", sizeof(all), alignof(all) );
printf("\n sizeof(a16) %d alignof(a16) %d", sizeof(a16), alignof(a16) );
printf("\n");
}
$g++ -latomic -std=c++11 -m32 all.cc
$./a.out
sizeof(ac) 1 alignof(ac) 1
sizeof(as) 2 alignof(as) 2
sizeof(al) 4 alignof(al) 4
sizeof(all) 8 alignof(all) 4
sizeof(a16) 16 alignof(a16) 1
gcc :
$ cat all.c
#include <stdatomic.h>
#include <stdio.h>
typedef struct {
char c[16];
} S16;
int main ( void ) {
_Atomic char ac;
_Atomic short as;
_Atomic long al;
_Atomic long long all;
_Atomic S16 a16;
printf("\n sizeof(ac) %d alignof(ac) %d", sizeof(ac), __alignof__(ac) );
printf("\n sizeof(as) %d alignof(as) %d", sizeof(as), __alignof__(as) );
printf("\n sizeof(al) %d alignof(al) %d", sizeof(al), __alignof__(al) );
printf("\n sizeof(all) %d alignof(all) %d", sizeof(all), __alignof__(all)
);
printf("\n sizeof(a16) %d alignof(a16) %d", sizeof(a16), __alignof__(a16)
);
printf("\n");
}
$ gcc -latomic -std=c11 -m32 all.c
$ ./a.out
sizeof(ac) 1 alignof(ac) 1
sizeof(as) 2 alignof(as) 2
sizeof(al) 4 alignof(al) 4
sizeof(all) 8 alignof(all) 8
sizeof(a16) 16 alignof(a16) 16
avl@ficus:~/atomic_test$
Note 8-bytes and 16-bytes objects aligned at their size at -m32.
>From gcc-bugs-return-482046-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Fri Mar 27 15:47:57 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-482046-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 86775 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2015 15:47:56 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 86702 invoked by uid 48); 27 Mar 2015 15:47:53 -0000
From: "jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libfortran/65605] [4.9 Regression] Namelist mishandles delim
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 16:02:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libfortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.3
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status resolution
Message-ID: <bug-65605-4-XSJ7rM2Dvf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-65605-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-65605-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-03/txt/msg03190.txt.bz2
Content-length: 537
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?ide605
Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #1 from Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Duplicate. I did not see Dominique captured it.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 65596 ***
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-27 15:58 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
@ 2015-03-27 19:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-28 10:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-27 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #8 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexey Lapshin from comment #7)
> It looks like this fix makes alignment of atomic object to be the same as
> alignment of integral non-atomic object of the same size.
That was the intention, yes. Because I understood that to be what _Atomic does.
> The gcc behavior is different it makes alignment of atomic objects of sizes
> 1,2,4,8,16 to match with size :
Oh.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-27 19:15 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-28 10:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-03-30 11:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-28 10:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED |---
--- Comment #9 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I don't have a fix for this yet, so let's re-open it ...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-28 10:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-03-30 11:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-09 11:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-03-30 11:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #10 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Alexey Lapshin from comment #7)
> It looks like this fix makes alignment of atomic object to be the same as
> alignment of integral non-atomic object of the same size.
Actually it only did that for non-integral atomic objects, e.g. I didn't do
anything to change std::atomic<long long>.
> The gcc behavior is different it makes alignment of atomic objects of sizes
> 1,2,4,8,16 to match with size :
That's not strictly true, there is a target hook (atomic_align_for_mode) which
specifies the alignment for 1/2/4/8/16-byte objects, and the result is not
necessarily the same as the size. Or so I'm told. That's why I used the nested
conditional expressions with alignof(integral type) instead of just using
alignas(sizeof(T)).
> $g++ -latomic -std=c++11 -m32 all.cc
> $./a.out
>
> sizeof(ac) 1 alignof(ac) 1
> sizeof(as) 2 alignof(as) 2
> sizeof(al) 4 alignof(al) 4
> sizeof(all) 8 alignof(all) 4
> sizeof(a16) 16 alignof(a16) 1
There are two problems here.
The first is that alignof(std::atomic<long long>) is less than alignof(long
long), and my recent changes didn't address that. That is easy to fix:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h
@@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
// 8 bytes, since that is what GCC built-in functions for atomic
// memory access expect.
template<typename _ITp>
- struct __atomic_base
+ struct alignas(_ITp) __atomic_base
{
private:
typedef _ITp __int_type;
The second problem is that alignof(struct S16) is not increased. That's because
libstdc++ doesn't support __int128 on x86, so this bit of code doesn't do
anything:
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_INT128
: sizeof(_Tp) == sizeof(__int128) ? alignof(__int128)
#endif
I'm not sure how to fix this. Maybe we should just bodge it like this and hope
it is valid for all important targets:
#ifdef _GLIBCXX_USE_INT128
: sizeof(_Tp) == sizeof(__int128) ? alignof(__int128)
#else
: sizeof(_Tp) == 16 ? 16
#endif
(The real solution is a new attribute that uses the target hook, so we can
guarantee the same result as the C front end, but it's too late to do that for
GCC 5).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2015-03-30 11:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-09 11:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-09 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-09 11:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Author: redi
Date: Thu Apr 9 11:15:44 2015
New Revision: 221945
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=221945&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-04-09 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
Richard Henderson <rth@redhat.com>
PR libstdc++/65147
* include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base<_ITp>): Increase
alignment.
* include/std/atomic (atomic): For types with a power of two size set
alignment to at least the size.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc: Adjust dg-error line number.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/65147.cc: New.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/65147.cc: New.
Added:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/65147.cc
- copied, changed from r221943,
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_integral/65147.cc
- copied, changed from r221943,
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
Modified:
trunk/libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h
trunk/libstdc++-v3/include/std/atomic
trunk/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/60695.cc
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-09 11:16 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-09 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-10 14:46 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (2 subsequent siblings)
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-09 11:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Alexey, your testcases in comment 0 and comment 7 give the right results now.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-09 11:18 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-10 14:46 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
2015-04-22 12:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-22 12:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com @ 2015-04-10 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
--- Comment #13 from Alexey Lapshin <alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #12)
> Alexey, your testcases in comment 0 and comment 7 give the right results now.
Thank You!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-10 14:46 ` alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
@ 2015-04-22 12:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2015-04-22 12:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-22 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|5.0 |5.2
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.1 has been released.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/65147] alignment of std::atomic object is not correct
2015-02-20 20:01 [Bug c++/65147] New: alignment of std::atomic object is not correct alexey.lapshin at oracle dot com
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2015-04-22 12:02 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2015-04-22 12:59 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
14 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2015-04-22 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65147
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Target Milestone|5.2 |5.0
--- Comment #15 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This was fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread