https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #17 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Hans-Peter Nilsson from comment #16)
> (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #14)
> > Can we close this?
>
> No. IIUC, we're still/again using __atomic_is_lock_free with alignment
> deduced from the current object rather than the type (even though it's now a
> proxy-object; the faked pointer is constructed from the alignment of the
> current object).
>
> So, r221701 was wrong to change from null to the alignment-deduced
> fake-pointer.
So, if we can't close, does it make sense to still leave it in WAITING? WAITING
implies a threat to close if what's being waited upon isn't produced.
