On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 at 18:59, Giuseppe D'Angelo
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On 11/10/2024 21:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > Or alternatively, and arguably simpler, we could get rid of the ugly
> > _GLIBCXX20_INIT macro and just do this:
> > +#if __cpp_lib_atomic_value_initialization
> > + atomic(
Hello,
On 11/10/2024 21:43, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Or alternatively, and arguably simpler, we could get rid of the ugly
_GLIBCXX20_INIT macro and just do this:
+#if __cpp_lib_atomic_value_initialization
+ atomic() noexcept (is_nothrow_default_constructible_v<_Tp>)
+ requires (is_defau
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 20:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 20:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 21 Sept 2024 at 10:43, Giuseppe D'Angelo
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > The attached patch modifies std::atomic's primary template. The goal is
> > > to improv
On Fri, 11 Oct 2024 at 20:33, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Sat, 21 Sept 2024 at 10:43, Giuseppe D'Angelo
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > The attached patch modifies std::atomic's primary template. The goal is
> > to improve compatibility with Clang, while also possibly making it more
> > complai
On Sat, 21 Sept 2024 at 10:43, Giuseppe D'Angelo
wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> The attached patch modifies std::atomic's primary template. The goal is
> to improve compatibility with Clang, while also possibly making it more
> complaint with the changes introduced by P0883 / C++20.
>
> Simplifying, std::a
default
constructor is not constrained, so it should be `true`. Right now we're
reporting `false` instead.
Thoughts?
Thank you,
--
Giuseppe D'Angelo
From 274543f82ac4e77aaf9c8f5158a44b98538537e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Giuseppe D'Angelo
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2024 10:36:20
