From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-491704-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 82444 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2015 07:43:44 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 82404 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jul 2015 07:43:41 -0000
From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug libstdc++/41861] [DR 887][C++0x] <condition_variable> does not use monotonic_clock
Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 07:43:00 -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: 4.4.1
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
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-41861-4-oTXKkCCOVk@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-41861-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-41861-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00594.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41861

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Aaron, your reply got added to Bug 887 for some reason.

Re-posting Aaron's comment here:

>Thanks. I had already patched our gcc so that gthreads cond always gets
>initialized with CLOCK_MONOTONIC, then I switched __clock_t in
>condition_variable to steady_clock. It was a very simple change and works
>well but not nearly as portable as yours.
>
>I also disabled all timed waits on mutex (gcc already has ifdef for that)
>in order to avoid problems there. In my opinion, people shouldn't be using
>timed waits on mutexes anyway, since they are not cooperatively
>interruptible. If we did need them for some reason, I would reimplement
>timed mutex in terms of condition_variable and a regular mutex.
>
>It seems strange that this is no big deal to lots of people.