Loading...

•   Click here to view the Best Answer Next Thread Prev Thread

• Posts   Search Threads

• feradz October 10, 2008 7:20 AM PDT    Testing abort with tm_pure Hi I ma using the Intel STM C compiler version 2.0, Ihave the following code bellow. when compiled $icc -Qtm_enable test test.c the value of "b" is 1 but is expected 0. It works for -O0 specified explicitly. Found it useful to share since users may waste quite a time understanding why getting wired variables when not compiling with -O0. 1 #include <stdlib.h> 2 #include <stdio.h> 3 #include <pthread.h> 4 5 int abort_counter = 0; 6 7 __attribute__((tm_pure)) 8 void increment_abort_counter() 9 { 10     abort_counter++; 11 } 12 13 14 int main() 15 { 16     int a = 0; 17     int b = 0; 18 19     __tm_atomic 20     { 21         a++; 22 23         increment_abort_counter(); 24 25         __tm_atomic 26         { 27             b++; 28             increment_abort_counter(); 29 30             if (abort_counter == 2) 31             { 32                 __tm_abort; 33             } 34         } 35     } 36 37     printf("abort_counter, expected 2, actual: %dn", abort_counter); 38     printf("a, expected 1, actual: %dn", a); 39     printf("b, expected 0, actual: %dn", b); 40     return 0; 41 }   Ravi Narayanaswamy (Intel) October 10, 2008 3:47 PM PDT Rate   #1 Re: Testing abort with tm_pure Quoting - feradz Hi I ma using the Intel STM C compiler version 2.0, Ihave the following code bellow. when compiled $icc -Qtm_enable test test.c the value of "b" is 1 but is expected 0. It works for -O0 specified explicitly. Found it useful to share since users may waste quite a time understanding why getting wired variables when not compiling with -O0. 1 #include <stdlib.h> 2 #include <stdio.h> 3 #include <pthread.h> 4 5 int abort_counter = 0; 6 7 __attribute__((tm_pure)) 8 void increment_abort_counter() 9 { 10     abort_counter++; 11 } 12 13 14 int main() 15 { 16     int a = 0; 17     int b = 0; 18 19     __tm_atomic 20     { 21         a++; 22 23         increment_abort_counter(); 24 25         __tm_atomic 26         { 27             b++; 28             increment_abort_counter(); 29 30             if (abort_counter == 2) 31             { 32                 __tm_abort; 33             } 34         } 35     } 36 37     printf("abort_counter, expected 2, actual: %dn", abort_counter); 38     printf("a, expected 1, actual: %dn", a); 39     printf("b, expected 0, actual: %dn", b); 40     return 0; 41 }   Yes the value of b should be 0.  This is a bug in the compiler,  when optimization is enabled we incorrectly propagate the value b++ to the print statement.   Next update should address this problem.

• = Best Answer

  Next Thread Prev Thread

Intel Software Network Forums Statistics

12,297 users have contributed to 33,456 threads and 110,210 posts to date.