On 2021-03-23 09:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 23/03/21 09:26 -0700, Thiago Macieira via Libstdc++ wrote: On
Tuesday, 23 March 2021 08:39:43 PDT Thomas Rodgers wrote: I will be
submitting a new patch for the
atomic.wait/barrier/latch/semaphore functionality a bit later today
that
subsumes the
On 23/03/21 09:26 -0700, Thiago Macieira via Libstdc++ wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 08:39:43 PDT Thomas Rodgers wrote:
I will be submitting a new patch for the
atomic.wait/barrier/latch/semaphore functionality a bit later today that
subsumes the changes to atomic_wait and latch, and includes
On Tuesday, 23 March 2021 08:39:43 PDT Thomas Rodgers wrote:
> I will be submitting a new patch for the
> atomic.wait/barrier/latch/semaphore functionality a bit later today that
> subsumes the changes to atomic_wait and latch, and includes the changes
> to barrier.
Thanks, Thomas
Is that meant t
On 2021-03-22 08:29, Thiago Macieira via Libstdc++ wrote:
Discussion at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-February/052043.html
This patch set includes the uncontroversial parts that improve
performance but don't otherwise change ABI.
Please note we still need to decide on how to de
> Discussion at:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-February/052043.html
>
> This patch set includes the uncontroversial parts that improve
> performance but don't otherwise change ABI.
>
> Please note we still need to decide on how to deal with the future ABI
> break.
>
> Thiago Mac
Discussion at:
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/libstdc++/2021-February/052043.html
This patch set includes the uncontroversial parts that improve
performance but don't otherwise change ABI.
Please note we still need to decide on how to deal with the future ABI
break.
Thiago Macieira (3):
Atomic
