https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |enhancement
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #4 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
13:24:16 UTC ---
Not a problem; thanks for looking.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
13:13:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm confused. IIUC even shared_futures aren't supposed to be accessed
> concurrently from multiple threads. Why would multiple threads be
> accessing a s
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #2 from Dave Abrahams 2011-12-19
12:11:33 UTC ---
on Mon Dec 19 2011, "redi at gcc dot gnu.org"
wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
> 11:51:52 UTC ---
> Cou
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51618
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-12-19
11:51:52 UTC ---
Could you expand on what you mean by "no attached synchronization"?
If a global future visible to all threads stores a deferred function then it
still needs synchronization to ensur
