From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id E57833858C39; Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:55:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org E57833858C39
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1663689304;
	bh=/+GmcWQePax0pGO2CEQOl2grex/4u1vvdrHfOVYasJE=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=FoSMOEJ+zaYBG7pd2MJPNjy22S++ppW27o7YQ3CxxMMT90UGEvMxoLFdO33xyXQW4
	 FVJ2Qkw9gQpRqhXVfAbkWlNxb21WEpM9vs6UEmiEYG2ACiUAbdhsJVjGewA8PkRxcH
	 xxwCeZRhJjsVL3fT5fjjs72QDs7nzsmtMB02Aq34=
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/106772] atomic<T>::wait shouldn't touch waiter pool
 if used platform wait
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 15:55:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: INVALID
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-106772-4-YTpQjXJXbx@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-106772-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-106772-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106772

--- Comment #14 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mkkt Bkkt from comment #12)
> First of, I was a toxic, sorry.
> But you start this first, maybe it's allowed for maintainer, I don't know.

No, you started it with sarcasm and disparaging remarks in comment 4, and
continued the aggression in comment 5.

Your example demonstrates a state machine where the only possible values of=
 the
atomic are known (e.g. a locked state and unlocked state). That is not the =
only
way to use atomics. If you have an atomic counter and want to signal when it
has been incremented, you cannot tell from the previous value whether anoth=
er
thread is waiting.=