On 2021-04-21 14:22, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 07:23:30PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via
Gcc-patches wrote:
We should do this for gcc-11 too if an RM approves it, since acquire()
is currently broken.
Ok, but please commit it soon, we'll need to do a RC2 tomorrow or on
Friday
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 07:23:30PM +0100, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-patches wrote:
> We should do this for gcc-11 too if an RM approves it, since acquire()
> is currently broken.
Ok, but please commit it soon, we'll need to do a RC2 tomorrow or on Friday
and then ideally no changes at all.
On 2021-04-21 11:23, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 21/04/21 10:10 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
[...snip...]
Please commit your patch to trunk, since that's what you had in your
original patch before I asked you to change it (causing the bug).
We should do this for gcc-11 too if an RM approves i
On 21/04/21 10:10 -0700, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
From: Thomas Rodgers
A change was made to __atomic_semaphore::_S_do_try_acquire() to
(ideally) let the compare_exchange reload the value of __old rather than
always reloading it twice. This causes _M_acquire to spin indefinitely
if the value of __o
From: Thomas Rodgers
A change was made to __atomic_semaphore::_S_do_try_acquire() to
(ideally) let the compare_exchange reload the value of __old rather than
always reloading it twice. This causes _M_acquire to spin indefinitely
if the value of __old is already 0.
libstdc++/ChangeLog:
*
