From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 20:43:58
Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
> Hi all,
> Is there a rational for the different behavior (signature) of the
> This operator returns long (the new value) on Win32 and Solaris, but
> has no return type (void) on pthread and gcc based systems.
No reason. In the "specification" in atomic_count.hpp I see that ++a is
documented as having no return value. So 'void' is correct and 'long' can be
considered correct but misleading.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk