[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-02 Thread rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 --- Comment #6 from Thomas Rodgers --- It does raise an issue which I'm going to follow up on separately on the SG1 (concurrency and parallelism study group) mailing list. While it is indeed the case that standard says you can't count on determ

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-02 Thread general at yhf8377 dot me via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 --- Comment #5 from yhf8377 --- Thank you Thomas for the detailed information and links to the references. I guess I will need to move this bug report into our own bug tracker. :-) This is indeed a bug in our code as we had incorrect assumption

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-01 Thread rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Rodgers --- I did some more reading of http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2020/n4878.pdf and it would seem that you are not even guaranteed a deterministic ordering of the application of binary_op on th

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-01 Thread rodgertq at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 Thomas Rodgers changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-01 Thread marxin at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 Martin Liška changed: What|Removed |Added CC||marxin at gcc dot gnu.org Ever confi

[Bug libstdc++/101274] [11/12 Regression] std::execution::seq has incorrect behaviour under GCC 11.1.0

2021-07-01 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=101274 Richard Biener changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||wrong-code Summary|std::exe