From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-474545-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 29201 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2015 12:33:28 -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 29111 invoked by uid 48); 23 Jan 2015 12:33:20 -0000
From: "bastiaan at bjacques dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/64735] std::future broken on armel
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 12:33:00 -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: bastiaan at bjacques dot 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: <bug-64735-4-hdfRveVrWf@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-64735-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-64735-4@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: 2015-01/txt/msg02539.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64735

--- Comment #5 from Bastiaan Jacques <bastiaan at bjacques dot org> ---
(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?