[Bug libstdc++/54005] Use __atomic_always_lock_free in libstdc++ is_lock_free instead of __atomic_is_lock_free

hp at gcc dot gnu.org gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Fri Oct 19 11:39:00 GMT 2018


--- Comment #34 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #32)
> I would prefer a function template instead of the LF macro e.g.

That will lose the __LINE__ information from the supposed error message in
VERIFY, i.e. it'll point at the check function rather than the unique invoking

> So the premise that "is_lock_free() is per-type implies it's the same as
> always_lock_free" is wrong.

Ouch.  That again exposes the __is_lock_free() flaws.  But that's for another

Can I at least change 
-           reinterpret_cast<void *>(-__alignof(_M_i)));
+           reinterpret_cast<void *>(-_S_alignment));

More information about the Gcc-bugs mailing list