libstdc++: Add missing free functions for atomic_flag [PR103934]
Commit Message
Comments
>+ 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.
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.
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.
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.
>
>
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.
>>
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.
> >>
>
>
The second patch has now been backported and pushed to releases/gcc-12 and
releases/gcc-11.
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 6:06 PM Thomas Rodgers <trodgers@redhat.com> wrote:
> 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.
>> >>
>>
>>
From c2b74fd7cf2668d288f46da42565e5eb954e5e1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Thomas Rodgers <rodgert@twrodgers.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 18:30:27 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] libstdc++: Add missing free functions for atomic_flag
[PR103934]
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
PR103934
* include/std/atomic: Add missing free functions.
* testsuite/29_atomics/atomic_flag/wait_notify/1.cc:
Add test case to cover missing atomic_flag free functions.
---
libstdc++-v3/include/std/atomic | 39 +++++++++++++++++++
.../29_atomics/atomic_flag/wait_notify/1.cc | 27 +++++++++++--
2 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
@@ -1216,6 +1216,26 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
memory_order __m) noexcept
{ return __a->test_and_set(__m); }
+#if __cpp_lib_atomic_flag_test
+ inline bool
+ atomic_flag_test(const atomic_flag* __a) noexcept
+ { return __a->test(); }
+
+ inline bool
+ atomic_flag_test(const volatile atomic_flag* __a) noexcept
+ { return __a->test(); }
+
+ inline bool
+ atomic_flag_test_explicit(const atomic_flag* __a,
+ memory_order __m) noexcept
+ { return __a->test(__m); }
+
+ inline bool
+ atomic_flag_test_explicit(const volatile atomic_flag* __a,
+ memory_order __m) noexcept
+ { return __a->test(__m); }
+#endif
+
inline void
atomic_flag_clear_explicit(atomic_flag* __a, memory_order __m) noexcept
{ __a->clear(__m); }
@@ -1241,6 +1261,25 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
atomic_flag_clear(volatile atomic_flag* __a) noexcept
{ atomic_flag_clear_explicit(__a, memory_order_seq_cst); }
+#if __cpp_lib_atomic_wait
+ inline void
+ atomic_flag_wait(const atomic_flag* __a, bool __old) noexcept
+ { __a->wait(__old); }
+
+ inline void
+ atomic_flag_wait_explicit(const atomic_flag* __a, bool __old,
+ std::memory_order __m) noexcept
+ { __a->wait(__old, __m); }
+
+ inline void
+ atomic_flag_notify_one(const atomic_flag* __a) noexcept
+ { __a->notify_one(); }
+
+ inline void
+ atomic_flag_notify_all(const atomic_flag* __a) noexcept
+ { __a->notify_all(); }
+#endif // __cpp_lib_atomic_wait
+
template<typename _Tp>
using __atomic_val_t = typename atomic<_Tp>::value_type;
@@ -26,8 +26,8 @@
#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
-int
-main()
+void
+test01()
{
std::atomic_flag a;
VERIFY( !a.test() );
@@ -39,5 +39,26 @@ main()
});
a.wait(false);
t.join();
- return 0;
+}
+
+void
+test02()
+{
+ std::atomic_flag a;
+ VERIFY( !std::atomic_flag_test(&a) );
+ std::atomic_flag_wait(&a, true);
+ std::thread t([&]
+ {
+ std::atomic_flag_test_and_set(&a);
+ std::atomic_flag_notify_one(&a);
+ });
+ std::atomic_flag_wait(&a, false);
+ t.join();
+}
+
+int
+main()
+{
+ test01();
+ test02();
}
--
2.31.1