Skip to content

P2079R10 Parallel scheduler #8033

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

P2079R10 Parallel scheduler #8033

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

jensmaurer
Copy link
Member

@jensmaurer jensmaurer added this to the post-2025-06 milestone Jun 30, 2025
@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2025-06-lwg-23 branch from 461e878 to 606e6a5 Compare July 1, 2025 21:18
\item%
when \tcode{std::execution::get_parallel_scheduler} is called and
\tcode{std::execution::system_context_replace\-ability::query_parallel_scheduler_backend()}
returns a null pointer value\iref{exec.par.scheduler}.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The paper says

returns nullptr

Seems like a fixup commit is needed, assuming this is purely editorial.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change from the paper's wording is intentional, you can't return the keyword "nullptr" (as seen by the caller).

Comment on lines +5835 to +5836
calls \tcode{terminate}\iref{except.terminate}.
Otherwise, returns a \tcode{parallel_scheduler} object
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Note that the paper originally said "terminate()" and "an parallel_scheduler" here (which are wrong and should be fixed, but still, it's all in one commit).

@jensmaurer jensmaurer force-pushed the motions-2025-06-lwg-23 branch from 27f9ba3 to dceb6b2 Compare July 10, 2025 22:00
Copy link
Member

@Eisenwave Eisenwave left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

A few changes could probably go into fixup commits, but there aren't any drastic changes, so I'm fine with merging as is.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

[2025-06 LWG Motion 23] P2079R10 Parallel scheduler P2079 R8 Parallel Scheduler
2 participants