https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Thomas Rodgers <rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Rodgers <rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> N.B. [member.functions] in the standard says
>
> "For a non-virtual member function described in the C++ standard library, an
> implementation may declare a different set of member function signatures,
> provided that any call to the member function that would select an overload
> from the set of declarations described in this document behaves as if that
> overload were selected."
>
> In general, being declared with a different signature is permitted.
>
> Do you have an example where a call to std::atomic<T>::notify_one() that
> should be valid according to the standard either fails to compile or
> misbehaves, as a result of being const qualified?
Pending the outcome of whether there is an LWG issue with the wording, and
given this, I am going to mark this issue SUSPENDED.
