On Monday, 1 March 2021 14:04:34 PST Ville Voutilainen wrote: > Well, this would be different. What I'm suggesting is not quite that; > for any *new* facility, we'd make sure > that its draft macro and the final IS macro are different, but the > minimum value is the first draft version, > not anything below it. I don't care too much, that approach and yours > would work the same way. Things that already > had an IS value for a macro and haven't changed since don't need to be > changed. And we don't > need to bump all values of existing facilities either, just for those > that got changes, so some existing macros > would be considered lost causes. Like the ones we're talking about, > because the cats are already out of the > bag.
But the code I posted, if people are careful to use write like I did, would allow us to have the experimental "we're not sure this is right" implementation of atomic waits, latches, barriers and semaphores right now. It would simply require that we decrement the macros by 1 in the libstdc++ headers. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel DPG Cloud Engineering
