From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22110 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2014 13:11:58 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22086 invoked by uid 89); 30 Apr 2014 13:11:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:11:56 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3UDBtmg029200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:11:55 -0400 Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (oldenburg.str.redhat.com [10.33.200.60]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s3UDBrYJ010157 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Apr 2014 09:11:54 -0400 Message-ID: <5360F699.6040907@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 13:11:00 -0000 From: Florian Weimer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: moze CC: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: g++ running async??? References: <023b01cf644d$861caf80$92560e80$@moze.de> In-Reply-To: <023b01cf644d$861caf80$92560e80$@moze.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 On 04/30/2014 10:23 AM, moze wrote: > I tried the suggestion below. And sync() does the trick. So seems not to be > a problem of gcc but rather of the kernel. I consider this only a > workaround, because flushing a system-wide cache in such a standard > situation seems a littel over-kill. But that belongs in a another list. > Or might it be that g++ takes control of the flushing-behaviour but forgets > in the end that it cannot rely on the standard flush-on-process-end? If calling sync() makes a difference, your system is severely broken. sync() should have no observable effect (beyond timing differences) while the system is running. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team