Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [Lockfree review] Meta-comments
From: Simonson, Lucanus J (lucanus.j.simonson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-07-26 13:07:36

Phil Endecott wrote:
> But: my suspicion is that it is now too late for Boost.Atomic to be
> useful. g++ already seems to have its own std::atomic implementation
> (since 4.4 apparently). With the impending ratification of C++0x we
> can surely expect Microsoft and LLVM to have their implementations
> ready soon (apparently LLVM says "The only major missing piece of
> C++'0x support [in libc++] is <atomic>". So by the time a group of
> replacement maintainers got their acts together, they/we might only be
> maintaining Boost.Atomic for the benefit of a few people who are
> unable
> to use newest compilers. That wouldn't motivate me much.

I disagree. The majority of C++ projects will continue to use older compilers for years after the new standard is ratified and fully implemented by all major compilers. I don't expect people will port their code to the new C++ lightly. Compiler version changes tend to be painful and infrequent in large projects. Just consider how many people continue to use MSVC7.1 and 8. Boost atomic will provide a way to write code that is portable between new and old compilers. Specifically, boost code that is portable between new and old compiler will be enabled, so it is critically important for boost itself to add the library exactly because of the new standard.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at