From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18136 invoked by alias); 5 May 2015 01:58:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17712 invoked by uid 89); 5 May 2015 01:58:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 05 May 2015 01:58:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 75A918E917; Tue, 5 May 2015 01:57:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-116-21.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.21]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t451vvaw008344; Mon, 4 May 2015 21:57:57 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 May 2015 01:58:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Wakely To: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [patch] libstdc++/56117 make std::async launch new threads by default Message-ID: <20150505015713.GE2399@redhat.com> References: <20150502185627.GG3618@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150502185627.GG3618@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00269.txt.bz2 On 02/05/15 19:56 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >One last patch before I head to Lenexa, this fixes the long standing >not-a-bug that our default launch policy is launch::deferred. > >This way std::async with no explicit policy or with any policy that >contains launch::async will run in a new thread. > >Apparently libc++ does the same and they aren't getting lots of >complaints about fork-bombs, so let's try the same thing. If people >don't like it we have plenty of time in stage 1 to reconsider. > >Tested x86_64-linux and powerpc64le-linux, I'm going to commit this to >trunk unless someone strongly objects. Committed to trunk.