Boost logo

Boost :

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
> atomic_count::operator++()?
> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at