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: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 00:57:21 +0000
Subject: Re: Is libstdcxx-time still experimental?
References: <CAMe9rOpy1UNdyi=ftW+_PvSkaJ3gqrcbzXz9gfrrc8-frFhGYg@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdRfcYMbMdZeL4s1UHZXiUgte90W-N6fUGjW3Br7XU3pHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAH6eHdQ5VJsN00jGeZDWJuV9BWX5pXimFPo8ZPT8i-nTjRqsDg@mail.gmail.com>

On 26 August 2012 18:20, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> 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.

I'm planning to commit something very similar to this before the end
of stage 1, but with __sleep_for always exported from libstdc++.so to
avoid --enable-libstdcxx-time changing the library API.

Attachment: patch.txt
Description: Text document

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