Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: [atomic] review results
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 06:25:16
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> you said that gcc doesn't follow the suggestion of the standard to avoid
> per-process states.
Again, this suggestion is for the lock-free case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk