a76e698787
While looking at LWG-2988 and P0558 it seems the issues were already implemented, but the synopsis wasn't updated. Some of the tests didn't validate the `noexcept` status. A few tests were missing completely: - `atomic_wait_explicit` - `atomic_notify_one` - `atomic_notify_all` Mark P0558 as complete, didn't investigate which version of libc++ first includes this. It seems the paper has been retroactively applied. I couldn't find whether this is correct, but looking at cppreference it seems intended. Completes - LWG-2988 Clause 32 cleanup missed one typename - P0558 Resolving atomic<T> named base class inconsistencies Reviewed By: #libc, ldionne Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D103765 |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| atomics.fences | ||
| atomics.flag | ||
| atomics.general | ||
| atomics.lockfree | ||
| atomics.order | ||
| atomics.syn | ||
| atomics.types.generic | ||
| atomics.types.operations | ||
| types.pass.cpp | ||