[Bug libstdc++/105934] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] C++11 pointer versions of atomic_fetch_add missing because of P0558

2022-06-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 Jonathan Wakely changed: What|Removed |Added Known to work||8.5.0 Known to fail|

[Bug libstdc++/105934] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] C++11 pointer versions of atomic_fetch_add missing because of P0558

2022-06-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 --- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely --- Created attachment 53127 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=53127=edit Restore atomic_fetch_{add,sub} partial specializations for pointers This patch restores the partial

[Bug libstdc++/105934] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] C++11 pointer versions of atomic_fetch_add missing because of P0558

2022-06-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 --- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely --- Somewhat related: The MSVC testsuite has an example using atomic_store that fails with libstdc++:

[Bug libstdc++/105934] [9/10/11/12/13 Regression] C++11 pointer versions of atomic_fetch_add missing because of P0558

2022-06-13 Thread redi at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=105934 --- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely --- I think this is actually expected post-P0558, and I would prefer to treat that paper as a DR, because the original spec for the atomic_xxx free functions was weird and inconsistent. The partial