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++/102994] std::atomic<ptr>::wait is not marked const
Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 00:55:03 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-102994-4-InVdkYCH7P@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-102994-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=102994
Thomas Rodgers <rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|REOPENED |SUSPENDED
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Rodgers <rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #10)
> N.B. [member.functions] in the standard says
>
> "For a non-virtual member function described in the C++ standard library, an
> implementation may declare a different set of member function signatures,
> provided that any call to the member function that would select an overload
> from the set of declarations described in this document behaves as if that
> overload were selected."
>
> In general, being declared with a different signature is permitted.
>
> Do you have an example where a call to std::atomic<T>::notify_one() that
> should be valid according to the standard either fails to compile or
> misbehaves, as a result of being const qualified?
Pending the outcome of whether there is an LWG issue with the wording, and
given this, I am going to mark this issue SUSPENDED.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-04 0:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-29 2:37 [Bug libstdc++/102994] New: " gcc_bugzilla at axeitado dot com
2021-10-30 10:42 ` [Bug libstdc++/102994] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 1:57 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 2:14 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-10 10:52 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-03 20:31 ` gcc_bugzilla at axeitado dot com
2022-02-03 21:01 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-03 21:34 ` gcc_bugzilla at axeitado dot com
2022-02-04 0:03 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 0:33 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 0:39 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 0:44 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-04 0:55 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2022-02-04 1:37 ` gcc_bugzilla at axeitado dot com
2022-02-04 10:55 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-11 17:41 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-07 15:42 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-21 7:50 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-22 22:53 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-04-22 22:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-10 14:57 ` rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org
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-102994-4-InVdkYCH7P@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: link
Be 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).