From patchwork Wed Oct 10 17:16:28 2012 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Andrew MacLeod X-Patchwork-Id: 190720 Return-Path: X-Original-To: incoming@patchwork.ozlabs.org Delivered-To: patchwork-incoming@bilbo.ozlabs.org Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 135202C0087 for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:16:51 +1100 (EST) Comment: DKIM? See http://www.dkim.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; x=1350494212; h=Comment: DomainKey-Signature:Received:Received:Received:Received:Received: Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject: References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Mailing-List:Precedence: List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender: Delivered-To; bh=ndaMIaV33/NA+ShCzW646xnsQbY=; b=AYqPFFpnk35IwLs 0AgUtigrgLUu+9998iaZCjPwikDEQ20wv1m48GpU7Gt97p8fwOgq4QQSGA/Ob4U1 1o8gB+dsTZlspJ+RVsvW9fLC/cjQ94BKeBlm6TakGAM7oFhn2AjrfMryFsHoghlM os0xGL0ZqjDe91MapatgHKY0ad2U= Comment: DomainKeys? See http://antispam.yahoo.com/domainkeys DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=gcc.gnu.org; h=Received:Received:X-SWARE-Spam-Status:X-Spam-Check-By:Received:Received:Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:X-Forwarded-Message-Id:Content-Type:X-IsSubscribed:Mailing-List:Precedence:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:Sender:Delivered-To; b=XvWpmBvCZc3LYMeYOV24XFkMd8+MQhxGpILknXYSbTltSXpyG7KcTTFG84pWJl FmYTCCmz0e8dT1247iDq8j5XVBdP9cqhMhP+aWF0qZAa9NOrWTWmOEZ2oX38P+n8 8lpHhUef8rQaoDt0S9zddOtuVthzMLMUIVi03FzIDtH8g=; Received: (qmail 12612 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2012 17:16:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 12584 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Oct 2012 17:16:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL, BAYES_00, KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST, KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP, KHOP_THREADED, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W, RP_MATCHES_RCVD, SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:16:30 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9AHGTiC012775 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0400 Received: from [10.11.11.85] (vpn-11-85.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.11.85]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9AHGTJN011301 for ; Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:16:29 -0400 Message-ID: <5075AD6C.8070405@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 13:16:28 -0400 From: Andrew MacLeod User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gcc-patches Subject: [PATCH] GCC 4.7 : PR 54861 - libstdc++ header file typo References: <50746FAE.8020609@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50746FAE.8020609@redhat.com> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <50746FAE.8020609@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org This bootstraps and causes no new regressions on the 4.7 branch. Is it OK to check this into the 4.7 branch right now? Thanks Andrew -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PR 54861 - libstdc++ header file typo Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2012 14:40:46 -0400 From: Andrew MacLeod To: gcc-patches There is a typo in the header files for libstdc++ where the atomic_signal_fence() method is actually calling __atomic_thread_fence() instead of __atomic_signal_fence(). This results in extra barriers in the executable that don't need to be there. fixed as trivial and checked into mainline. Is it OK to check this into the 4.7 branch once I've verified it there as well? ie, it's not frozen or anything right now is it? Thanks Andrew 2012-10-09 Andrew MacLeod PR libstdc++/54861 * include/bits/atomic_base.h (atomic_signal_fence): Call __atomic_signal_fence instead of __atomic_thread_fence. Index: include/bits/atomic_base.h =================================================================== *** include/bits/atomic_base.h (revision 192254) --- include/bits/atomic_base.h (working copy) *************** _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION *** 74,80 **** inline void atomic_signal_fence(memory_order __m) noexcept ! { __atomic_thread_fence(__m); } /// kill_dependency template --- 74,80 ---- inline void atomic_signal_fence(memory_order __m) noexcept ! { __atomic_signal_fence(__m); } /// kill_dependency template