http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Noone disputes it's not conforming. The point is the support is incomplete.
It's known to be incomplete. It's documented as incomplete. Reporting a bug to
say it's incomplete doesn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #4 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
__STDC_VERSION__ describes *intent* of command-line options (as regards
differences between standard versions, to the extent that those are
implemented).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #5 from Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com ---
Can someone tell me where the appropriate place to define __STDC_NO_ATOMICS__
and __STDC_NO_THREADS__ in GCC so I can submit a patch? I'd rather solve the
problem and take 1-2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jeff.science
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #7 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
__STDC_NO_THREADS__ is defined in glibc's stdc-predef.h because it
describes combination compiler and library properties.
The correct fix for atomics for 4.9
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
Paolo Carlini paolo.carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|blocker |normal
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
I don't know whether Andrew intends stdatomic.h to go in GCC or glibc, but
in any case I consider this a duplicate of bug 53769, which in turn I
don't really
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58016
--- Comment #2 from Jeff Hammond jeff.science at gmail dot com ---
If GCC doesn't support C11, it should not claim to support C11 via
__STDC_VERSION__. The C11 standard definition isn't a recommendation from
which implementers can pick and choose
