From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4365 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2015 15:51:12 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 4288 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jan 2015 15:51:04 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/64735] std::future broken on armel Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 15:51:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: c++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.9.2 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: In-Reply-To: References: 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: 2015-01/txt/msg02587.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64735 --- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely --- (In reply to Bastiaan Jacques from comment #5) > (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #3) > > i.e. it's not broken, it's missing, and that's by design. > > So is it the intention of the GCC developers that program writers targeting > such platforms simply avoid these facilities and use std::thread/mutex > instead? Or they could contribute an implementation that works for their target. The intention of the developers is that the feature should work correctly, and if that isn't possible with the current implementation for some target, then the feature should be disabled on that target. And that's what you see.