http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org 2010-12-14
23:27:20 UTC ---
Author: redi
Date: Tue Dec 14 23:27:17 2010
New Revision: 167823
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=167823
Log:
2010-12-14 Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
Jonathan Wakely redi at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
---
--- Comment #4 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-08-06 15:36 ---
The committee is currently in the middle of re-designing future::get so I'll
wait and see what happens. It looks as though it's going to be renamed and
throw if called twice.
--
redi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 14:30 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
I would assume the result of doing a get() when !valid() is undefined,
No need to assume, it's stated explicitly in the FCD.
so
throwing an exception when someone does this would be
--- Comment #3 from redi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-30 14:39 ---
On second thoughts, concurrent calls to future::get are also undefined, so
simply asserting valid() would be better. I'll do that asap.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45133
--- Comment #1 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2010-07-29 17:34
---
Jon, can you have a look? Thanks.
--
paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
