Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk. I'll backport this too.

-- >8 --

In r14-5922-g6c8f2d3a08bc01 I added <stdint.h> to <bits/atomic_wait.h>,
so that uintptr_t is declared if that header is compiled as a header
unit. I used <stdint.h> because that's what <atomic> already includes,
so it seemed simpler to be consistent. However, this means that name
lookup for uintptr_t in <bits/atomic_wait.h> depends on whether
<cstdint> has been included by another header first. Whether name lookup
finds std::uintptr_t or ::uintptr_t will depend on include order. This
causes problems when compiling modules with Clang:

bits/atomic_wait.h:251:7: error: 'std::__detail::__waiter_pool_base' has 
different definitions in different modules; first difference is defined here 
found method '_S_for' with body
      _S_for(const void* __addr) noexcept
      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
bits/atomic_wait.h:251:7: note: but in 'tm.<global>' found method '_S_for' with 
different body
      _S_for(const void* __addr) noexcept
      ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By including <cstdint> we would ensure that name lookup always finds the
name in namespace std. Alternatively, we can stop including <stdint.h>
for those types, so that we don't declare the entire contents of
<stdint.h> when we only need a couple of types from it. This patch does
the former, which is appropriate for backporting.

libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:

        * include/bits/atomic_wait.h: Include <cstdint> instead of
        <stdint.h>.
---
 libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h 
b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h
index 1460b1d8d5c..8e01a9c518d 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/atomic_wait.h
@@ -35,7 +35,7 @@
 #include <bits/version.h>
 
 #if __glibcxx_atomic_wait
-#include <stdint.h>
+#include <cstdint>
 #include <bits/functional_hash.h>
 #include <bits/gthr.h>
 #include <ext/numeric_traits.h>
-- 
2.43.0

Reply via email to