The second patch has now been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and
releases/gcc-11.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 6:06 PM Thomas Rodgers <trodg...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pushed to trunk.
>
> The first patch has also been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and
> releases/gcc-11
>
> The second patch fails to cleanly cherry-pick. Will resolve and push
> shortly.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 18:25, Thomas Rodgers <trodg...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > This patch did not get committed in a timely manner after it was OK'd.
>> In revisiting the patch some issues were found that have lead me to
>> resubmit for review -
>> >
>> > Specifically -
>> >
>> > The original commit to add C++20 atomic_flag::test did not include the
>> free functions for atomic_flag_test[_explicit]
>> > The original commit to add C++20 atomic_flag::wait/notify did not
>> include the free functions for atomic_flag_wait/notify[_explicit]
>> >
>> > These two commits landed in GCC10 and GCC11 respectively. My original
>> patch included both sets of free functions, but
>> > that complicates the backporting of these changes to GCC10, GCC11, and
>> GCC12.
>>
>> I don't think we need them in GCC 10.
>>
>> > Additionally commit 7c2155 removed const qualification from
>> atomic_flag::notify_one/notify_all but the original version of this
>> > patch accepts the atomic flag as const.
>> >
>> > The original version of this patch did not include test cases for the
>> atomic_flag_test[_explicit] free functions.
>> >
>> > I have split the original patch into two patches, on for the
>> atomic_flag_test free functions, and one for the atomic_flag_wait/notify
>> > free functions.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> For [PATCH 1/2] please name the added functions in the changelog entry:
>>
>> * include/std/atomic (atomic_flag_test): Add.
>> (atomic_flag_test_explicit): Add.
>>
>> Similarly for the changelog in [PATCH 2/2], naming the four new
>> functions added to include/std/atomic.
>>
>> The indentation is off in [PATCH 2/2] for atomic_flag:
>>
>> +#if __cpp_lib_atomic_wait
>> + inline void
>> + atomic_flag_wait(atomic_flag* __a, bool __old) noexcept
>> + { __a->wait(__old); }
>> +
>>
>> And similarly for the other three added functions.
>> The function names should start in the same column as the 'inline' and
>> opening brace of the function body.
>>
>>
>> Both patches are OK for trunk, gcc-12 and gcc-11 with those changes.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:35 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >+ inline void
>> >> >+ atomic_flag_wait_explicit(const atomic_flag* __a, bool __old,
>> >> >+ std::memory_order __m) noexcept
>> >>
>> >> No need for the std:: qualification, and check the indentation.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>> >> >
>> >> > PR103934
>> >>
>> >> This needs to include the component: PR libstdc++/103934
>> >>
>> >> > * include/std/atomic: Add missing free functions.
>> >>
>> >> Please name the new functions in the changelog, in the usual format.
>> >> Just the names is fine, no need for the full signatures with
>> >> parameters.
>> >>
>> >> OK for trunk with those changes.
>> >>
>>
>>
