From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DD3D13858C2C; Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:12:22 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DD3D13858C2C DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1661785942; bh=pgRBFLGJfBj1yswJaeB2s3eTB4Q8AVDKOd3foDEg9+0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=pqMlewA/nOnVRdj8vuimhyX1Cjno/I8wuraK91BLN/a5TsWiZga9RUKEfNMWaBUMw IzrYm4+BRQi3z+MRQ0nSlAtgxdrkZg9E52WVpmrbYGz1QMB0AhmE/xGldO1guMJEYc ZUMnjdNMcLbtSQY/byQZYGapFLwrl3UAJ/HLrvEA= From: "rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/106772] atomic::wait shouldn't touch waiter pool if used platform wait Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2022 15:12:22 +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: rodgertq 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: resolution bug_status Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: 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: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D106772 Thomas Rodgers changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |INVALID Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #2 from Thomas Rodgers --- This is not a bug. The size of the waiter pool, not withstanding, the point= is you want to determine if a notify is likely to notify anything, to avoid the very expensive (by comparison) syscall to wake the futex.=