[libcxx-commits] [PATCH] D129380: [libc++] Undeprecate ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT (LWG3659)

[Mark de Wever via Phabricator via libcxx-commits]

Mordante added a comment.

In D129380#3639224 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129380#3639224>, @aaron.ballman wrote:

> In D129380#3639202 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D129380#3639202>, @philnik wrote:
>
>> Please wait until the LWG issue has been accepted.
>
> To be clear on the status: LWG has accepted this as tentatively ready, but there is a short window for people to object to that status which would pull the issue back into needing committee discussion. Given the subject matter, it'd be quite surprising if anyone did so, and so this is expected to go into C++23 (and should be treated as DR against C++20).
>
> I'm not certain of libc++'s schedule, but I'm hoping to land the C changes in Clang shortly so that they make it into Clang 15 in an effort to limit user confusion (Clang 14 shipped with the diagnostic enabled).

Thanks for the additional information. The libc++ policy is not to implement LWG-issue before they are voted in at a plenary, but we make exceptions when needed.
When this gets accepted in the next plenary we definitely should ship this in LLVM 15, however that doesn't mean we need land it before the branching happens, there still time afterwards see
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/llvm-15-0-0-release-schedule/63495/7 and
https://discourse.llvm.org/t/llvm-15-0-0-release-schedule/63495/9

Based on @aaron.ballman's comment I'm in favour to land this after the review comments have been addressed. In the unexpected case it doesn't get voted is we can revert the change.
@ldionne how do you feel about landing this before it's voted in at the next plenary?



================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst:50
 - P0618R0 (Deprecating <codecvt>)
+- LWG3659 (Consider ``ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT`` undeprecation)
 
----------------
tambre wrote:
> philnik wrote:
> > We currently don't release-note LWG issues. I don't know if it would make sense to do so. We only started release-noting papers in this release cycle.
> I'd say such fixes seem noteworthy enough. This is definitely a smaller one, but I'm keeping it for now unless someone else weighs in.
I've no strong opinion whether or not to add it. I don't think we need to list all LWG issues, since some of the are not really "user visible", but this one is.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bIssues.csv:159
 "`3657 <https://wg21.link/LWG3657>`__","``std::hash<std::filesystem::path>`` is not enabled","February 2022","",""
+"`3659 <https://wg21.link/LWG3659>`__","Consider ``ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT`` undeprecation","July 2022","|Complete|","15.0"
 "`3660 <https://wg21.link/LWG3660>`__","``iterator_traits<common_iterator>::pointer`` should conform to §[iterator.traits]","February 2022","|Complete|","14.0"
----------------
I would like to see an update the note for `P0883` with information regarding this LWG issue.


================
Comment at: libcxx/docs/Status/Cxx2bIssues.csv:159
 "`3657 <https://wg21.link/LWG3657>`__","``std::hash<std::filesystem::path>`` is not enabled","February 2022","",""
+"`3657 <https://wg21.link/LWG3659>`__","Consider ``ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT`` undeprecation","February 2022","|Complete|","15.0"
 "`3660 <https://wg21.link/LWG3660>`__","``iterator_traits<common_iterator>::pointer`` should conform to §[iterator.traits]","February 2022","|Complete|","14.0"
----------------
tambre wrote:
> philnik wrote:
> > This wasn't accepted in February 2022. You also forgot to update the number.
> Done, thanks.
The issues on this page are group by the plenary where they were accepted. Please move this to the bottom of the proper place for the July 2022 plenary.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D129380/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D129380