Subject: Re: [boost] [1.53] request to merge lockfree (c++11 only)
From: Tim Blechmann (tim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-16 07:34:42
>>>> 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 ...
> Interprocess atomics are not the blocker for Boost.Atomic, it can be
> added later. Aside from Boost.Test-related errors and tester issues,
> tests look green in trunk (although I didn't check each one of them).
> So unless there is something non-obvious (Helge, could you confirm
> this?), I'd simply merge Boost.Atomic to release as it is.
would be fine with me (me as in `review manager')
>> 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 thought Boost.Lockfree already uses Boost.Atomic, doesn't it? What
> needs to be changed?
boost.lockfree uses atomic<>, which is boost::atomic or std::atomic (if
available). but it instantiates it with a struct, so it does not compile
with g++ older than 4.8 ...
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk