public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0 Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2021 16:47:06 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-101274-4-7p3CdThcLS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-101274-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers <rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org> --- It does raise an issue which I'm going to follow up on separately on the SG1 (concurrency and parallelism study group) mailing list. While it is indeed the case that standard says you can't count on deterministic sequencing for std::reduce(), I can't find any wording that directly supports the wording on cppreference.com std::execution::sequenced_policy, though that wording is consistent with my recollection of SG1's discussions regarding execution policies. There is wording that says 'Unless otherwise specified, the semantics of ExecutionPolicy algorithm overloads are identical to their overloads without." The wording for std::for_each() for the non-execution policy overload the standard says - Effects: Applies f to the result of dereferencing every iterator in the range [first, last), starting from first and proceeding to last - 1. And for one that takes an execution policy - Effects: Applies f to the result of dereferencing every iterator in the range [first, last). So it omits the ordering constraint, which makes sense, but I wonder if we shouldn't be more explicit in the documentation of the policies themselves.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-02 16:47 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-30 16:08 [Bug c++/101274] New: " general at yhf8377 dot me 2021-06-30 16:09 ` [Bug c++/101274] " general at yhf8377 dot me 2021-07-01 7:17 ` [Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-01 7:56 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-01 18:54 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-02 1:03 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org 2021-07-02 12:00 ` general at yhf8377 dot me 2021-07-02 16:47 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-101274-4-7p3CdThcLS@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).