On 20/04/17 11:21 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 10:18:09AM +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 08:19 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 04/19/2017 07:07 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > I know it's a bit late, but I'd like to propose deprecating the
> > libstdc++ extension that allows arithmetic on std::atomic<void*>.
> > Currently we make it behave like arithmetic on void*, which is also a
> > GNU extension (https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Pointer-Arith.html).
> > We also allow arithmetic on types such as std::atomic<void(*)()> which
> > is probably not useful (PR 69769).
>
> Why is it acceptable to have the extension for built-in types, but not
> for library types wrapping them? Why be inconsistent about this?
C++17 [atomic.types.pointer] paragraph 4 says:
Requires: T shall be an object type, otherwise the program is
ill-formed. [Note: Pointer arithmetic on void* or function pointers
is ill-formed. — end note]
That doesn't give us any leeway to support it.
Can't the support or lack thereof depend on -pedantic/-pedantic-errors?
In theory maybe.
I mean, with -pedantic-errors we already error on void * arighmetics
or function pointer arithmetics. If std::atomic<void*> would use
the void * arithmetics, it would also reject it. Or does it use integer
arithmetics instead?
No, it does it on void*, but the __atomic built-ins still perform that
arithmetic even with -pedantic-errors.
