--- Comment #7 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-24 07:09
---
Fixed for 4.4.1 and 4.5.0
--
jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #6 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07:08 ---
Subject: Bug 40297
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 24 07:07:49 2009
New Revision: 148894
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148894
Log:
2009-06-24 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/40297
*
--- Comment #5 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-24 07:06 ---
Subject: Bug 40297
Author: redi
Date: Wed Jun 24 07:06:17 2009
New Revision: 148893
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=148893
Log:
2009-06-24 Jonathan Wakely
PR libstdc++/40297
*
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu |jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot
|dot org
--- Comment #4 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-18 12:43
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> It seems strange to me that clear() allows memory_order_consume but not
> acquire. I'll ask on the lib reflector if that's an oversight,
I asked and everyone agreed it should disallow c
--- Comment #3 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-18 00:33 ---
Jonathan, you are right. These assertions are all backwards. I see this hitting
the following members:
load
store
compare_exchange_strong
I should have done tests for this, obviously. Ouch. Now you've done this for
m
--- Comment #2 from jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com 2009-06-16 12:35
---
I think all the assertions are simply backwards, the load() operation requires:
"The order argument shall not be memory_order_release nor
memory_order_acq_rel."
so the assertions should be
__glibcxx_assert
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2009-06-04 15:16
---
Let's CC Benjamin...
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
