Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ECBF5D825 for ; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:38:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 26421 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2012 15:38:45 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-stdcxx-dev-archive@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 26351 invoked by uid 500); 17 Sep 2012 15:38:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@stdcxx.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@stdcxx.apache.org Received: (qmail 26343 invoked by uid 99); 17 Sep 2012 15:38:45 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:38:45 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of wojciech.meyer@arm.com designates 91.220.42.44 as permitted sender) Received: from [91.220.42.44] (HELO service87.mimecast.com) (91.220.42.44) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 15:38:38 +0000 Received: from cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com (fw-tnat.cambridge.arm.com [217.140.96.21]) by service87.mimecast.com; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:38:17 +0100 Received: from e103010-lin.cambridge.arm.com ([10.1.255.212]) by cam-owa2.Emea.Arm.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:38:17 +0100 From: Wojciech Meyer To: "dev\@stdcxx.apache.org" Subject: Re: STDCXX-1056 [was: Re: STDCXX forks] References: <40394653-8FCC-4D04-A108-2C650AF8F95B@hates.ms> <504FE7F9.90102@gmail.com> <504FF10E.8020506@hates.ms> <50508849.4070708@hates.ms> <50547C22.1000604@hates.ms> <5054EAB7.5050609@hates.ms> <5055EE63.6090004@hates.ms> <50566461.4080101@hates.ms> <50571B8B.6020202@hates.ms> <50573F0F.3090908@hates.ms> <5057413C.3060207@hates.ms> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:38:16 +0100 In-Reply-To: <5057413C.3060207@hates.ms> (Liviu Nicoara's message of "Mon, 17 Sep 2012 16:26:52 +0100") Message-ID: <9ippq5k7j87.fsf@e103010-lin.cambridge.arm.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Sep 2012 15:38:17.0214 (UTC) FILETIME=[7523A1E0:01CD94EA] X-MC-Unique: 112091716381701801 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Liviu Nicoara writes: > On 09/17/12 11:21, Stefan Teleman wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Liviu Nicoara wrot= e: >> >>> I hope you agree that this synchronization is sufficient for the facet >>> initialization and reading of facet data. >> >> Sorry, I do not agree. Two different thread analyzers from two >> different compilers written by two different compiler writers tell me >> not to. > > Stefan, that is indeed your prerogative. However, please keep in mind > that tools may be buggy or may have limitations beyond what is > advertised. I do not ask you to have faith in my analysis, which would > be absurd, but to look for yourself, exercise due diligence in testing > the code and draw your own conclusions. so which compilers do fail? You know, some of them might use the same component. --=20 Wojciech