From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 214D93854811; Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:11:19 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 214D93854811 From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug gcov-profile/97461] [11 Regression] allocate_gcov_kvp() deadlocks in firefox LTO+PGO build (overridden malloc() recursion) Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:11:19 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: gcov-profile X-Bugzilla-Version: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: WAITING X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: marxin at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 11.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 19:11:19 -0000 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D97461 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #18 from Jakub Jelinek --- Formatting - one space after =3D rather than two. Why do you need the __gcov_test_memory variable at all? If you want to avoid optimizing away the malloc/free pair, just make it volatile - char *volatile p =3D malloc (16); free (p); or use a memory barrier in th= ere. Can the function be called from multiple threads concurrently? I guess it isn't a big deal if malloc/free pair is called in each of them o= nce, but perhaps it should use __atomic_load_n and __atomic_store_n for the malloc_initialized variable?=