[M3commit] CVS Update: cm3

[Jay K]

Darnit and now those version stamp mispatch problems are gone too. I don't know what the heck is/was going on.

 - Jay

----------------------------------------
> From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:50:11 -0400
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
>
> I added it a long time back only because I saw failures with optimisation turned on. Something to do with the alias analysis (and lack of proper type information) as far as I recall.
>
>
> On 3 Jul 2010, at 20:44, Jay K wrote:
>
> >
> > Tony, just to be clear..you/I are disturbed by volatile, but it has also, I believe, like always been there.
> > It has been gone only very briefly, and its non-use is probably limited for other reasons (how many people are
> > using it, on how many platforms?).
> >
> >
> > - Jay
> >
> > ----------------------------------------
> >> From: jay.krell at cornell.edu
> >> To: hosking at cs.purdue.edu; jkrell at elego.de
> >> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
> >> Subject: RE: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> >> Date: Sun, 4 Jul 2010 00:42:20 +0000
> >>
> >>
> >> Not a multiprocessor.
> >> Still interested in selective volatile?
> >>
> >>
> >> This all bothers me too.
> >> I don't want volatile. It makes the optimized code terrible.
> >> But I don't want to debug any problem from removing it, beyond compilation failure.
> >>
> >>
> >> I can try a few things.
> >> This is all wierd. I swear I saw it hang several times.
> >> I swear I'm trying to to change "too many" variables at a time. Yes, I know, 2 is too many.
> >>
> >>
> >> Once I started getting version stamp mismatch, I resorted to using a cross built cm3.
> >> Out of necessity sort of, but that causes more flucuation of variables.
> >>
> >> Let me try again with volatile and see if it is solid.
> >> Then I'll try with only volatile stores.
> >>
> >> I've been trying optimized and unoptimized, and not kept good track of which when.
> >>
> >>
> >> - Jay
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------
> >>> From: hosking at cs.purdue.edu
> >>> Date: Sat, 3 Jul 2010 20:36:20 -0400
> >>> To: jkrell at elego.de
> >>> CC: m3commit at elegosoft.com
> >>> Subject: Re: [M3commit] CVS Update: cm3
> >>>
> >>> I am very disturbed that volatile is needed here. Can we selectively turn it on for thread-critical files like ThreadPThread and see if it fixes the problem. I wonder if the double-checked locking is broken for PPC memory model. Is this on a multi-processor?
> >>>
> >>> On 3 Jul 2010, at 12:57, Jay Krell wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> CVSROOT: /usr/cvs
> >>>> Changes by: jkrell at birch. 10/07/03 12:57:09
> >>>>
> >>>> Modified files:
> >>>> cm3/m3-sys/m3cc/gcc/gcc/m3cg/: parse.c
> >>>>
> >>>> Log message:
> >>>> restore volatile for powerpc and powerpc64 platforms
> >>>> This seems to fix PPC_LINUX hanging.
> >>>> This needs further debugging, but I'm not eager.
> >>>> This will also affect PPC_DARWIN, PPC64_DARWIN, PPC32_OPENBSD,
> >>>> PPC32_NETBSD, PPC32_FREEBSD, etc., but these platforms are little used or
> >>>> nonexistant.
> >>>>
> >>>> Having volatile like has been the very long standing situation though.
> >>>> The result is that the optimizer does basically nothing.
> >>>
> >>
> >
>