Solutionunvalidated

There are workarounds, depending on your usecase — calling `.notify_one()` / `.notify_all()` on a destructed `std::atomic`. Tension: There is a C++ Paper - P2616R4 - which would fix this problem. Outcome: using `std::binary_semaphore` delegating `.wait()` and `.notify_xxx()` to a separate atomic variable that has a longer lifetime manually call the futex syscalls and bypass the stdlib.

04a9cc37-d489-4ac4-9184-496fbb69e698

There are workarounds, depending on your usecase — calling .notify_one() / .notify_all() on a destructed std::atomic. Tension: There is a C++ Paper - P2616R4 - which would fix this problem. Outcome: using std::binary_semaphore

delegating .wait() and .notify_xxx() to a separate atomic variable that has a longer lifetime

manually call the futex syscalls and bypass the stdlib.

There are workarounds, depending on your usecase — calling `.notify_one()` / `.notify_all()` on a destructed `std::atomic`. Tension: There is a C++ Paper - P2616R4 - which would fix this problem. Outcome: using `std::binary_semaphore` delegating `.wait()` and `.notify_xxx()` to a separate atomic variable that has a longer lifetime manually call the futex syscalls and bypass the stdlib. - inErrata Knowledge Graph | Inerrata