From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3945 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2004 12:39:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 3934 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2004 12:39:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2004 12:39:16 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (213.36.54.173) by mail.libertysurf.net (6.5.036) id 403C4E8901A1FC6A; Thu, 11 Mar 2004 13:38:22 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: Eric Botcazou To: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) Subject: Re: GCC Status Report (2004-03-09) Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 12:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <10403111218.AA28637@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> In-Reply-To: <10403111218.AA28637@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200403111343.29448.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00533.txt.bz2 > No, I don't think that's right. I'm pretty sure that there is some > code someplace that will fail if there are two writes to the same /u > location and I thought we added code to prevent any such. Ok, fine, that's even clearer then. But that was not the impression I got when reading the discussion between you and Olivier on the subject. -- Eric Botcazou