Subject: Re: [boost] [1.53] request to merge lockfree (c++11 only)
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-16 06:39:14
>> i'm not sure about the state of atomic, as the original author hardly
>> reacts on emails and atm, i don't have the time to adopt it ...
> Are you aware of the blockers that prevent Boost.Atomic from being
> merged to release? Perhaps there are minor problems and we could help
> the author to resolve them and merge Boost.Atomic ourselves.
i'm not aware of any further issues with boost.atomic. most of the
issues that have been raised during the review have been resolved. the
only remaining thing is the fallback for shared-memory, but according to
the standard, the behavior is not really defined ... and helge
originally wanted to provide a version that supports shared memory to be
included into boost.interprocess ...
for 1.52 i considered adopting boost.atomic, but ran out of time and
atm, i don't have the resources to work on this, either ... but if you'd
volunteer to help, it would be really great!
>> i'd therefore request permission to merge boost.lockfree into release,
>> depending on std::atomic<>. this means, that it will require gcc-4.8 or
>> msvc 2012 in c++11 mode to compile it (not sure about clang++, as their
>> c++11 support under linux is pretty broken).
> Relying on an unreleased version of gcc looks nearly unacceptable to
> me. I know previous versions did not support atomic structs but this
> is hardly the reason to ignore atomic integers that were supported
> since gcc 4.4. Can Boost.Lockfree be adopted to use integer atomics?
possible, but will require some changes to boost.lockfree, that i'd
rather avoid if possible ...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk