From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3636 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2015 14:24:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3620 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2015 14:24:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:24:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48C1691759; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-34.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.34]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tB2EOn8D028451 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Dec 2015 09:24:50 -0500 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id tB2EOl3s004740; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:24:48 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id tB2EOlHv004739; Wed, 2 Dec 2015 15:24:47 +0100 Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:24:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Nathan Sidwell Cc: Alexander Monakov , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Bernd Schmidt , Dmitry Melnik , Thomas Schwinge Subject: Re: [gomp-nvptx 2/9] nvptx backend: new "uniform SIMT" codegen variant Message-ID: <20151202142446.GR5675@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <1448983707-18854-1-git-send-email-amonakov@ispras.ru> <1448983707-18854-3-git-send-email-amonakov@ispras.ru> <20151202104034.GG5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <565EEBF7.8070105@acm.org> <20151202131013.GL5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <565EF470.3050400@acm.org> <20151202134602.GN5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <565EFCAB.1080902@acm.org> <20151202142200.GQ5675@tucnak.redhat.com> <565EFECF.6040803@acm.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <565EFECF.6040803@acm.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00276.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > On 12/02/15 09:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > >I believe Alex' testing revealed that if you take address of the same .local > >objects in several threads, the addresses are the same, and therefore you > >refer to your own .local space rather than the other thread's. > > Before or after applying cvta? I'll let Alex answer that. Jakub