This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/54005] Use __atomic_always_lock_free in libstdc++ is_lock_free instead of __atomic_is_lock_free
- From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 22:16:00 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/54005] Use __atomic_always_lock_free in libstdc++ is_lock_free instead of __atomic_is_lock_free
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-54005-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 22:16:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> ,,,
> In fact, the compiler implements __atomic_is_lock_free() by (paraphrased):
ITYM *will* implement. :) Right now we still have PR54004.
> So if a code change is desired (but it isn't required), the 2nd parameter could
> be passed as NULL to __atomic_is_lock_free().
Since a lot of code changes will happen in this area soonish (hopefully), I
guess it's no actual use quoting current documentation or implementation. I'll
leave it to you and bkoz to fight out whether you want his change reverted
before that happens.