On 20/04/21 14:20 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/21 13:02 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 19/04/21 12:23 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
+ template<typename _Up, typename _ValFn,
+ typename _Spin = __default_spin_policy>
+ static bool
+ _S_do_spin_v(__platform_wait_t* __addr,
+ const _Up& __old, _ValFn __vfn,
+ __platform_wait_t& __val,
+ _Spin __spin = _Spin{ })
+ {
+ auto const __pred = [=]
+ { return __atomic_compare(__old, __vfn()); };
This doesn't compile, there are 28 FAILs in 29_atomics/*
FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/value_init.cc (test for excess errors)
It needs to be qualified as __detail::__atomic_compare.
Ah no, the problem is that atomic_flag::wait uses it, but it tries to
compare a bool to atomic_flag::__atomic_flag_data_type, which isn't
the same.
And this on solaris:
FAIL: 29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/value_init.cc (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/export/home/jwakely/build/sparc-sun-solaris2.11/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h:263:
error: '_M_addr' was not declared in this scope; did you mean '__addr'?
/export/home/jwakely/build/sparc-sun-solaris2.11/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h:263:
error: argument 1 of '__atomic_load' must be a non-void pointer type
UNRESOLVED: 29_atomics/atomic_integral/cons/value_init.cc compilation failed to
produce executable
Just a typo, but I don't think we can push this to gcc-11 at this
late stage.
