Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N5001.

1. Modify [exec.run.loop.general] as indicated:

   namespace std::execution {
     class run_loop {
       // [exec.run.loop.types], associated types
       class run-loop-scheduler; // exposition only
       class run-loop-sender;    // exposition only
       struct run-loop-opstate-base { // exposition only
         virtual void execute() = 0;  // exposition only
         run_loop* loop;              // exposition only
         run-loop-opstate-base* next; // exposition only
       };
       template<class Rcvr>
         using run-loop-opstate = unspecified; // exposition only
   
       // [exec.run.loop.members], member functions
       run-loop-opstate-base* pop-front(); // exposition only
       void push-back(run-loop-opstate-base*); // exposition only
   
     public:
       // [exec.run.loop.ctor], constructor and destructor
       run_loop() noexcept;
       run_loop(run_loop&&) = delete;
       ~run_loop();
   
       // [exec.run.loop.members], member functions
       run-loop-scheduler get_scheduler();
       void run();
       void finish() noexcept;
     };
   }
   

2. Modify [exec.run.loop.members] as indicated:

   void finish() noexcept;
   

   -8- Preconditions: state is either starting or running.

   -9- Effects: Changes state to finishing.

   -10- Synchronization: `finish` synchronizes with the pop-front operation that returns nullptr.

[ 2025-06-13; Reflector poll ]

Set priority to 2 after reflector poll.

"If this can call `terminate()`, we should explicitly say so (c.f. [thread.condition.condvar] p11)"

Imported from cplusplus/sender-receiver #329.

`run_loop::finish` puts the `run_loop` into the finishing state so that the next time the work queue is empty, `run_loop::run` will return instead of waiting for more work.

Calling `.finish()` on a `run_loop` instance can potentially throw (`finish()` is not marked `noexcept`), that is because one valid implementation involves acquiring a lock on a `std::mutex` — a potentially throwing operation.

But failing to put the `run_loop` into the finishing state is problematic in the same way that a failing destructor is problematic: shutdown and clean-up code depends on it succeeding.

Consider `sync_wait`'s use of `run_loop`:

sync-wait-state<Sndr> state;
auto op = connect(sndr, sync-wait-receiver<Sndr>{&state});
start(op);

state.loop.run();
if (state.error) {
  rethrow_exception(std::move(state.error));
}
return std::move(state.result);

It is the job of sync-wait-receiver to put the `run_loop` into the finishing state so that the invocation of `state.loop.run()` will return. It does that in its completion functions, like so:

void set_stopped() && noexcept;

Effects: Equivalent to state->loop.finish().

Here we are not handling the fact that state->loop.finish() is potentially throwing. Given that this function is `noexcept`, this will lead to the application getting terminated. Not good.

But even if we handle the exception and save it into `state.result` to be rethrown later, we still have a problem. Since `run_loop::finish()` threw, the `run_loop` has not been placed into the finishing state. That means that `state.loop.run()` will never return, and `sync_wait` will hang forever.

Simply put, `run_loop::finish()` has to be `noexcept`. The implementation must find a way to put the `run_loop` into the finishing state. If it cannot, it should terminate. Throwing an exception and foisting the problem on the caller — who has no recourse — is simply wrong.