From: Roland Schwarz (roland.schwarz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-11-15 06:30:19
Chris Thomasson wrote:
> Here is how I define rules for my atomic<T>:
> Can't use any constructors, destructors, base classes, virtual functions,
> or anything else that violates POD requirements.
> Can't use any operators
Hmm, what is your rationale for this choice?
I would have expected that you will need the POD
requirements only for type T, not for atomic<T>.
> Atomic operation API must have static interface that operates on pointers to
> T as the destination of any operation. Usage is like:
So, why then wrap as a class at all?
Why not simply templated global functions?
What I think is more important than making atomic<T>
a POD, is making atomic<T> fail to compile if
1) sizeof(T) != sizeof(atomic_t)
2) alignment of T != required alignment of atomic_t
Where atomic_t is a type that is atomic on the given
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk