This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Fix __libc_signal_block_all on sparc64
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: Adhemerval Zanella <adhemerval dot zanella at linaro dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 18:00:14 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] Fix __libc_signal_block_all on sparc64
- Ironport-sdr: rCCXBAGjEWceoorOBmCF8ccJb037qSz1XrHxkDgV434s7tPET21adRUlgPTE+uRZPEsNbNfLo2 IjZmmMYaDhatWYt3HGh57S+Yf6Z3KZo9pct0ArAsveVqgcgGaHAFehKOfsmOiq8yC6nS+K1+15 rmW6WEoAYvPqYf6/zzdY+QzslaGassj/yeV5X2M5TSMGfkUaMHnlMdeLUvH+ocUgNvMcV2aD53 AypF6uQMh22C5WAxkgY1lLwsgvxApM40zc/MhTq6QdjbMy1BUKyvXkXhwTJnQNv1t0rnq7KyL6 ZGY=
- Ironport-sdr: nq+7wcfMO1tEgFrPOY0z6FPKtGaiezaPtLsDPfxonLV4IW+vk6WsJ95JgkB6N6zcFAWkfotLzO SgX4lGYgRmMybh7g0funyJiLrDIlHLQRq7tG55HrdA6nP7lUjeMdQ4EasxYXTwwoh0tSjiFcaD rrlyGwCjGTN5+Oh1wn67HV2h5x8M26r8tzZZWCnGYJ8EbwR8dUnn9q7SS9ZTfxlfuBQRJu6a9q YVIh7XbQ1tG08iAh0Brs+jt8W7XLR/U/zj2pnq7JaTjZKVVaUSk/qOUzrsY8R2g1ouo9eXwHVh li4=
- References: <20191210183221.26912-1-adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org> <mvmblsfi6tf.fsf@suse.de> <bcb67862-1d0a-9375-da62-48b56d2da7ae@linaro.org> <mvmimmngdnb.fsf@suse.de> <58e22f04-7c22-09d6-c203-7d5458de39fb@linaro.org> <mvmk171ecar.fsf@suse.de>
On Thu, 12 Dec 2019, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> On Dez 12 2019, Adhemerval Zanella wrote:
>
> > Well I am seeing such behaviour with gcc 9.2.1 on x86_64 at least:
>
> That's a missed optimisation bug in gcc then. There should not be a
> difference between a const compound literal and a static const object,
> if only constant expressions are used for initialisation.
There's a note at the bottom of https://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html
specifically about this ("const-qualified compound literals could share
storage with each other and with string literals, but currently don't.").
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com