Thomas Rast wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Thomas Rast wrote: >> > [GCC moves access to a file-static variable across pthread_mutex_lock()] >> >> Thanks for the investigation. >> Actually, isn't gcc -O2's code-motion justified? >> While we *know* that those globals may be modified asynchronously, >> builtin/grep.c forgot to tell gcc about that. > > I'm somewhat unwilling to believe that: You're right to be skeptical. I should have stuck with "using volatile works around the problem for me". The real problem seems to be in glibc, with its addition of the "leaf" attribute to those synchronization primitives: http://bugzilla.redhat.com/747377#c22 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html