Message ID | CAMmuTO9Z4rMGN0rhG=PHisSwPzonaggj68te1odk5O5TPEL4+A@mail.gmail.com |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
Series | libstdc++: Make atomic<T*>::wait() const [PR102994] | expand |
OK, thanks. On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Thomas Rodgers via Libstdc++ < libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >
On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:51, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > OK, thanks. Actually, we should really have a test to verify it can be called on a const object. Please add something when you commit, it can be dumb and simple, it just needs to verify that it can be called. > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Thomas Rodgers via Libstdc++ < > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > >
Revised patch attached. On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:51, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ > <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > OK, thanks. > > Actually, we should really have a test to verify it can be called on a > const object. Please add something when you commit, it can be dumb and > simple, it just needs to verify that it can be called. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Thomas Rodgers via Libstdc++ < > > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 18:09, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > Revised patch attached. > OK for trunk and gcc-11, thanks. > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:51, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ >> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> > OK, thanks. >> >> Actually, we should really have a test to verify it can be called on a >> const object. Please add something when you commit, it can be dumb and >> simple, it just needs to verify that it can be called. >> >> >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Thomas Rodgers via Libstdc++ < >> > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >> >>
const qualification was also missing in the free functions for wait/wait_explicit/notify_one/notify_all. Revised patch attached. On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 11:40 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 9 Nov 2021 at 18:09, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > >> Revised patch attached. >> > > OK for trunk and gcc-11, thanks. > > > >> On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 4:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:51, Jonathan Wakely via Libstdc++ >>> <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > OK, thanks. >>> >>> Actually, we should really have a test to verify it can be called on a >>> const object. Please add something when you commit, it can be dumb and >>> simple, it just needs to verify that it can be called. >>> >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > On Fri, 5 Nov 2021 at 21:46, Thomas Rodgers via Libstdc++ < >>> > libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> >>>
On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 01:27, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > const qualification was also missing in the free functions for wait/wait_explicit/notify_one/notify_all. Revised patch attached. Please tweak the whitespace in the new test: > +test1(const std::atomic<char*> &a, char*p) The '&' should be on the type not the variable, and there should be a space before 'p': > +test1(const std::atomic<char*>& a, char* p) OK for trunk and gcc-11 with that tweak, thanks!
Tested uild-x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, pushed to trunk and gcc-11. On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:24 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 at 01:27, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > > > const qualification was also missing in the free functions for > wait/wait_explicit/notify_one/notify_all. Revised patch attached. > > Please tweak the whitespace in the new test: > > > +test1(const std::atomic<char*> &a, char*p) > > The '&' should be on the type not the variable, and there should be a > space before 'p': > > > +test1(const std::atomic<char*>& a, char* p) > > OK for trunk and gcc-11 with that tweak, thanks! > >
From 360c094a0725bb0cc444115c0377db10e5e9ae1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@twrodgers.com> Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 14:30:24 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] libstdc++: Make atomic<T*>::wait() const [PR102994] This was an oversight in the original commit adding wait/notify to atomic<T>. libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: PR libstdc++/102994 * include/bits/atomic_base.h (__atomic_base<_PTp*>::wait()) add const qualifier. --- libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h index 9e18aadadaf..a104adc1a10 100644 --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_base.h @@ -893,7 +893,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION #if __cpp_lib_atomic_wait _GLIBCXX_ALWAYS_INLINE void wait(__pointer_type __old, - memory_order __m = memory_order_seq_cst) noexcept + memory_order __m = memory_order_seq_cst) const noexcept { std::__atomic_wait_address_v(&_M_p, __old, [__m, this] -- 2.31.1