This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Is libstdcxx-time still experimental?

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
To: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:20:33 +0100
Subject: Re: Is libstdcxx-time still experimental?
References: <CAMe9rOpy1UNdyi=ftW+_PvSkaJ3gqrcbzXz9gfrrc8-frFhGYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRfcYMbMdZeL4s1UHZXiUgte90W-N6fUGjW3Br7XU3pHw@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 August 2012 18:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On Aug 26, 2012 4:17 PM, "H.J. Lu" wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> According to
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2010-04/msg00064.html
>>
>> One reason of --enable-libstdcxx-time=no on Linux is
>> "not all users will want for an experimental c++0x mode."
>> Is this feature still  experimental today?
>
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2012-05/msg00085.html
>
> I'm working on a patch to enable it by default and to define
> this_thread::sleep_xxx and this_thread::yield unconditionally.

For anyone interested, here's a work-in-progress patch that enables
this_thread::sleep_for() and this_thread::yield() unconditionally, so
those APIs are complete even if --enable-libstdcxx-time isn't used.

Attachment: patch.txt
Description: Text document

References:
- Is libstdcxx-time still experimental?
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: Is libstdcxx-time still experimental?
  - From: Jonathan Wakely

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]