Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 22:06:30 +0100
Hi!
After today's teleconference, I couldn't resist, so
I created a draft TS for TM-light, mostly copying
from Victor's Google doc. See attached.
The new part is in 8.8, where we decree implementation-defined
behavior when "bad" things are evaluated inside an atomic block.
Possibly surprising changes vs. the status quo of the discussion:
- constexpr functions only
(as explained in the teleconference, the compiler might not retain
other functions from the same translation unit)
- throw-expressions are forbidden entirely
(Did we want to require support for throw/catch within the atomic
block? Seems more-than-minimal.)
- Coroutines are forbidden entirely.
(I haven't seen talk about them vs. TM. Also, they have funny
control flow.)
This would be in time to submit to the pre-Prague meeting,
for SG1 and EWG amusement there, if I get approval on this list
until Monday.
I've added all participants to the authors list, please complain
if that's wrong.
Jens
After today's teleconference, I couldn't resist, so
I created a draft TS for TM-light, mostly copying
from Victor's Google doc. See attached.
The new part is in 8.8, where we decree implementation-defined
behavior when "bad" things are evaluated inside an atomic block.
Possibly surprising changes vs. the status quo of the discussion:
- constexpr functions only
(as explained in the teleconference, the compiler might not retain
other functions from the same translation unit)
- throw-expressions are forbidden entirely
(Did we want to require support for throw/catch within the atomic
block? Seems more-than-minimal.)
- Coroutines are forbidden entirely.
(I haven't seen talk about them vs. TM. Also, they have funny
control flow.)
This would be in time to submit to the pre-Prague meeting,
for SG1 and EWG amusement there, if I get approval on this list
until Monday.
I've added all participants to the authors list, please complain
if that's wrong.
Jens
Received on 2020-01-09 15:09:04