From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 33643 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2018 14:43:08 -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 33626 invoked by uid 89); 9 Jan 2018 14:43:08 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=slip, Hx-languages-length:889, perfect 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 ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:43:06 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx06.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF1CB78558; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [10.33.36.58]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FE45E1D6; Tue, 9 Jan 2018 14:43:04 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 14:44:00 -0000 From: Jonathan Wakely To: Mike Crowe Cc: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Make std::future::wait_* use std::chrono::steady_clock when required Message-ID: <20180109144303.GD5527@redhat.com> References: <20180107205532.13138-1-mac@mcrowe.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180107205532.13138-1-mac@mcrowe.com> X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22) X-SW-Source: 2018-01/txt/msg00621.txt.bz2 On 07/01/18 20:55 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: >This patch series was originally submitted back in September at >https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2017-09/msg00083.html which ended up >as https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/cover/817379/ . The patches received >no comments at all, which may mean that they are perfect or that they >are so bad that no-one knew where to start with criticising them. It >would be good to know which. :) Sorry for the lack of review. Although not perfect I think the patches look good, but I didn't feel entirely confident reviewing them at the time, and let them slip through the cracks (we could do with more reviewers for libstdc++ patches). I'm taking another look now, and have asked the original author of the __atomic_futex_unsigned code to look too, so thanks for the ping.