https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|15.0|16.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #13 from Benjamin Buch ---
According to the CLI interface I opened a backwards compatible feature request:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=118301
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #12 from Benjamin Buch ---
The point is that the great majority of users do not read the full
documentation to find the section that mentions the experimental character of
the latest C++ modes. To be explicit about this, by just usin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Benjamin Buch from comment #10)
> In my option this is a very bad and hard to acceptable situation, even in an
> experimental mode. Especially since C++20 already has a wide adoption these
> da
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #10 from Benjamin Buch ---
Okay, I understand this.
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/status.html#status.iso.2020
defines P1135R6 is implemented since libstdc++ 11.1 and the feature test macro
__cpp_lib_semaphore >= 2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
--- Comment #9 from Sam James -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
Benjamin Buch changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||benni.buch at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #7 from Nate Eldredge ---
@Jonathan: Done,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-December/640119.html (sorry, may
not be linked to original threads).
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
If you can reply on gcc-patches (CCing the libstdc++ list) that would be great,
thanks for looking at it!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #5 from Nate Eldredge ---
Oh wait, disregard that last, I realized that I only applied one of the two
patches. Let me try again.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #4 from Nate Eldredge ---
@Jonathan: I think that patch set is on the right track, but it has some other
serious bugs. For one, __atomic_wait_address calls __detail::__wait_impl with
__args._M_old uninitialized (g++ -O3 -Wall catche
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2023-12-10
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #2 from Nate Eldredge ---
This bug is still present. Tested and reproduced with g++ 13.1.0 (Ubuntu
package), and by inspection of the source code, it's still in the trunk as
well.
Encountered on StackOverflow:
https://stackoverflow
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104928
--- Comment #1 from Tee Hao Wei ---
Created attachment 52628
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=52628&action=edit
Preprocessed, gzipped reproducer
15 matches
Mail list logo
