On 20/04/17 11:24 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 04/20/2017 11:22 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 20/04/17 10:18 +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.
If we can ignore the Note, we can also ignore the requirement …
I suppose we could support it without -Wpedantic, although there's no
way for the library to know if the front-end is being pedantic or not.
Could you use SFINAE to detect whether the compiler supports
arithmetic on void *?
Probably. We'd have to move the relevant member functions into a new
base class in order to make them conditionally disabled.
