From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24819 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2011 13:52:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 24767 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Oct 2011 13:52:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:51:52 +0000 From: "bartosz.szurgot at pwr dot wroc.pl" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/50862] deadlock in std::condition_variable_any Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2011 13:52:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: major X-Bugzilla-Who: bartosz.szurgot at pwr dot wroc.pl X-Bugzilla-Status: ASSIGNED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.3 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg02559.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D50862 --- Comment #4 from basz 2011-10-25 13= :51:45 UTC --- the most recent document on C++0x i have is N3290. according to it it is so= for condition_variable (30.5.1.9 and 30.5.1.10), but description for wait() of condition_variable_any is a bit more confusing. it says that it must be cal= led in 30.5.2.10, but 30.5.2.9 say it is undefined, if lock is called or not ("Note: if any of the wait functions exits via an exception, it is unspeci= =EF=AC=81ed whether the Lock is held. One can use a Lock type that allows to query that, such as the unique_lock wrapper.")... :/ i hope this is just a simple mistake in the spec (otherwise it would be a b= it of a pain in the neck). do you have any more recent document to verify this? perhaps this should be a separate bug report?