From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11240 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2007 10:28:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 11229 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2007 10:28:41 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:28:39 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9UASb46001816; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:28:37 -0400 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (devserv.devel.redhat.com [10.10.36.72]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9UASbRt007626; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:28:37 -0400 Received: from devserv.devel.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l9UASbmQ022984; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:28:37 -0400 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by devserv.devel.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/Submit) id l9UASahs022982; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:28:36 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:31:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Andrew Haley Cc: David Schwartz , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Is gcc thread-unsafe? Message-ID: <20071030102836.GL5451@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <18210.2314.57767.962503@zebedee.pink> <18215.1394.294830.944162@zebedee.pink> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18215.1394.294830.944162@zebedee.pink> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00755.txt.bz2 On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 10:20:34AM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: > That's what the proposed standard language says, kinda-sorta. There's > an informal description at > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2007/n2338.html. > > Anyway, we have fixed this bug and are committing it to all open gcc > branches. Credit to Ian Taylor for writing the patch. To be precise, it was fixed in one of the optimization passes, there are still others (e.g. loop invariant motion). Jakub