On Sat, 9 Mar 2024 at 12:18, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
>
>
> +template
>> + __wait_result_type
>> + __wait_for(const __platform_wait_t* __addr, __wait_args __args,
>> +const chrono::duration<_Rep, _Period>& __rtime) noexcept
>> +{
>> + if (!__rtime.count())
>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> From: Thomas Rodgers
>
> These two patches were written by Tom earlier this year, before he left
> Red Hat. We should finish reviewing them for GCC 14 (and probably squash
> them into one?)
>
> Tom, you mentioned further work that changes th
On Thu, 14 Dec 2023, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
I need to look at this a bit more (and not on my phone, at lunch).
Ultimately, C++26 expects to add predicate waits and returning a
‘tri-state’ result isn’t something that’s been considered or likely to be
approved.
Ok, then that seems to fit best wit
I need to look at this a bit more (and not on my phone, at lunch).
Ultimately, C++26 expects to add predicate waits and returning a
‘tri-state’ result isn’t something that’s been considered or likely to be
approved.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023 at 12:18 PM Jonathan Wakely
wrote:
> CCing Tom's current ad
CCing Tom's current address, as he's not @redhat.com now.
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, 19:24 Nate Eldredge, wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nate Eldredge wrote:
>
> > To fix, we need something like `__args._M_old = __val;` inside the loop
> in
> > __atomic_wait_address(), so that we always wait on the exa
On Mon, 11 Dec 2023, Nate Eldredge wrote:
To fix, we need something like `__args._M_old = __val;` inside the loop in
__atomic_wait_address(), so that we always wait on the exact value that the
predicate __pred() rejected. Again, there are similar instances in
atomic_timed_wait.h.
Thinking t
Ref: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636805.html,
https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2023-November/636804.html
I found a couple of bugs in this patch set.
#1: In atomic_wait.h, we have __wait_flags defined to include:
__do_spin = 4,
__spin_only = 8
On Thu, 16 Nov 2023 at 13:49, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> From: Thomas Rodgers
>
> These two patches were written by Tom earlier this year, before he left
> Red Hat. We should finish reviewing them for GCC 14 (and probably squash
> them into one?)
>
> Tom, you mentioned further work that changes t
From: Thomas Rodgers
These two patches were written by Tom earlier this year, before he left
Red Hat. We should finish reviewing them for GCC 14 (and probably squash
them into one?)
Tom, you mentioned further work that changes the __platform_wait_t* to
uintptr_t, is that ready, or likely to be r
