From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24761 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2011 13:03:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 24751 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2011 13:03:23 -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; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:03:06 +0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/50862] deadlock in std::condition_variable_any Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 13:03:00 -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: redi at gcc dot gnu.org 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" 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/msg02643.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50862 --- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely 2011-10-26 13:02:31 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > i'm not sure about uncaught_exception(). i remember reading in Herb Sutter's > that it's usage should be avoided, since it has some flaw, that makes it's > return value unsure. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/lwg-defects.html#1368 ? > but this was written in times of C++03 and i can't > remember what was the reasoning behind it (threading perhaps?), so i do not > know if it still holds for C++11 as well or not. any way there is still a > possibility of exception throwing from d-tor, which would be better to avoid. Why? In general, yes. But in this specific case I don't see a problem. it's a local class, noone can misuse it elsewhere. The value of uncaught_exception is well defined at the point where I want to call it. > but perhaps we'd be able to come out with some better/cleaner/shorter solution > for this problem? Comment 10 :) In practice, _M_cond.wait() is not going to throw (the error conditions for pthread_cond_wait cannot happen here) so this is irrelevant.