Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Pushed to trunk. The first patch has also been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and releases/gcc-11 The second patch fails to cleanly cherry-pick. Will resolve and push shortly. On Fri, Feb 10, 2023 at 4:41 PM Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 18:25, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > > > This patch did not get committed in a timely manner after it was OK'd. > In revisiting the patch some issues were found that have lead me to > resubmit for review - > > > > Specifically - > > > > The original commit to add C++20 atomic_flag::test did not include the > free functions for atomic_flag_test[_explicit] > > The original commit to add C++20 atomic_flag::wait/notify did not > include the free functions for atomic_flag_wait/notify[_explicit] > > > > These two commits landed in GCC10 and GCC11 respectively. My original > patch included both sets of free functions, but > > that complicates the backporting of these changes to GCC10, GCC11, and > GCC12. > > I don't think we need them in GCC 10. > > > Additionally commit 7c2155 removed const qualification from > atomic_flag::notify_one/notify_all but the original version of this > > patch accepts the atomic flag as const. > > > > The original version of this patch did not include test cases for the > atomic_flag_test[_explicit] free functions. > > > > I have split the original patch into two patches, on for the > atomic_flag_test free functions, and one for the atomic_flag_wait/notify > > free functions. > > Thanks. > > For [PATCH 1/2] please name the added functions in the changelog entry: > > * include/std/atomic (atomic_flag_test): Add. > (atomic_flag_test_explicit): Add. > > Similarly for the changelog in [PATCH 2/2], naming the four new > functions added to include/std/atomic. > > The indentation is off in [PATCH 2/2] for atomic_flag: > > +#if __cpp_lib_atomic_wait > + inline void > + atomic_flag_wait(atomic_flag* __a, bool __old) noexcept > + { __a->wait(__old); } > + > > And similarly for the other three added functions. > The function names should start in the same column as the 'inline' and > opening brace of the function body. > > > Both patches are OK for trunk, gcc-12 and gcc-11 with those changes. > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 2, 2022 at 1:35 PM Jonathan Wakely > wrote: > >> > >> >+ inline void > >> >+ atomic_flag_wait_explicit(const atomic_flag* __a, bool __old, > >> >+ std::memory_order __m) noexcept > >> > >> No need for the std:: qualification, and check the indentation. > >> > >> > >> > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog: > >> > > >> > PR103934 > >> > >> This needs to include the component: PR libstdc++/103934 > >> > >> > * include/std/atomic: Add missing free functions. > >> > >> Please name the new functions in the changelog, in the usual format. > >> Just the names is fine, no need for the full signatures with > >> parameters. > >> > >> OK for trunk with those changes. > >> > >