[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2012 10:28:42 +0100
From: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at>
To: "Boehm, Hans" <hans.boehm@...com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Torvald Riegel <triegel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org>,
"dsterba@...e.cz" <dsterba@...e.cz>,
"ptesarik@...e.cz" <ptesarik@...e.cz>,
"rguenther@...e.de" <rguenther@...e.de>,
"gcc@....gnu.org" <gcc@....gnu.org>
Subject: RE: Memory corruption due to word sharing
On Mit, 2012-02-01 at 21:04 +0000, Boehm, Hans wrote:
[...]
> The C11 memory model potentially adds overhead in only two cases:
>
> 1. When current code involves touching a field that wouldn't otherwise
> be touched. There are odd cases in which this measurably slows down
> code, but I think all agree that we need it. In addition to
> bitfields, it can affect speculatively promoting a value to a register
> in a loop, which at least older versions of gcc also do.
Just adding an -f option for this and/or activating it only for -O5 (or
whatever the highest level is) and - in case that feature is activated -
emit warnings if bitfields (and/or any other data types that might be
affected)?
Kind regards,
Bernd
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@...rovitsch.priv.at
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists