Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: Add missing free functions for atomic_flag [PR103934]

[Thomas Rodgers <trodgers@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3016 bytes --]

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 <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 18:25, Thomas Rodgers <trodgers@redhat.com> 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 <jwakely@redhat.com>
> 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.
> >>
>
>