On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 12:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> +template
>> + __wait_result_type
>> + __wait_for(const __platform_wait_t* __addr, __wait_args __args,
>> +const chrono::duration<_Rep, _Period>& __rtime) noexcept
>> +{
>> + if (!__rtime.count())
>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> From: Thomas Rodgers
>
> These two patches were written by Tom earlier this year, before he left
> Red Hat. We should finish reviewing them for GCC 14 (and probably squash
> them into one?)
>
> Tom, you mentioned further work that changes th
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
I need to look at this a bit more (and not on my phone, at lunch).
Ultimately, C++26 expects to add predicate waits and returning a
‘tri-state’ result isn’t something that’s been considered or likely to be
approved.
Ok, then that seems to fit best wit
I need to look at this a bit more (and not on my phone, at lunch).
Ultimately, C++26 expects to add predicate waits and returning a
‘tri-state’ result isn’t something that’s been considered or likely to be
approved.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:18 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> CCing Tom's current ad
CCing Tom's current address, as he's not @redhat.com now.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, 19:24 Nate Eldredge, wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nate Eldredge wrote:
>
> > To fix, we need something like `__args._M_old = __val;` inside the loop
> in
> > __atomic_wait_address(), so that we always wait on the exa
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nate Eldredge wrote:
To fix, we need something like `__args._M_old = __val;` inside the loop in
__atomic_wait_address(), so that we always wait on the exact value that the
predicate __pred() rejected. Again, there are similar instances in
atomic_timed_wait.h.
Thinking t
Ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636805.html,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636804.html
I found a couple of bugs in this patch set.
#1: In atomic_wait.h, we have __wait_flags defined to include:
__do_spin = 4,
__spin_only = 8
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> From: Thomas Rodgers
>
> These two patches were written by Tom earlier this year, before he left
> Red Hat. We should finish reviewing them for GCC 14 (and probably squash
> them into one?)
>
> Tom, you mentioned further work that changes t
