On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 16:54, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:21 AM Mike Crowe via Libstdc++ <
> libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday 10 May 2023 at 12:31:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
>> > libs
On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:21 AM Mike Crowe via Libstdc++ <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2023 at 12:31:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
> > libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch would avoid TSan fa
On Thu, 11 May 2023 at 13:19, Mike Crowe wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 May 2023 at 12:31:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
> > libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch would avoid TSan false positives when using timed waiting
>
On Wednesday 10 May 2023 at 12:31:12 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
> libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > This patch would avoid TSan false positives when using timed waiting
> > functions on mutexes and condvars, but as noted below, i
On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 12:20, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <
libstd...@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> This patch would avoid TSan false positives when using timed waiting
> functions on mutexes and condvars, but as noted below, it changes the
> semantics.
>
> I'm not sure whether we want this workaround i
This patch would avoid TSan false positives when using timed waiting
functions on mutexes and condvars, but as noted below, it changes the
semantics.
I'm not sure whether we want this workaround in place until tsan gets
fixed.
On one hand, there's no guarantee that those functions use the right
c
