2134. Redundant Mutex requirement?

Section: 33.4.3.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex] Status: Pending NAD Editorial Submitter: Pete Becker Opened: 2012-03-05 Last modified: 2016-02-10

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex].

View all issues with Pending NAD Editorial status.

Discussion:

33.4.3.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]/11 says that prior unlock operations synchronize with m.lock().

33.4.3.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]/19 says that if m.try_lock() succeeds, prior unlock operations synchronize with the operation.

33.4.3.2 [thread.mutex.requirements.mutex]/25 says that m.unlock() synchronizes with subsequent successful lock operations.

Does the third requirement add anything to the first two? If not, it should probably be a non-normative note.

[2012, Portland: move to Tentatively NAD Editorial]

Agree that third note should be non-normative and adds nothing.

Seems An Editorial change, but does changing a normative to non-normative wording makes it a non-editorial change?

Ask the editor. If not editorial, then we will agree on the fix as removal of the third point, then we will put it in ready state for Bristol.

Proposed resolution: