Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree] arm / iOS builds against Boost.Atomic
From: Jonathan Wakely (jwakely.boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-17 05:54:04
On 17 May 2013 02:46, Tim Blechmann wrote:
> hmm, maybe checks for both would be needed. e.g. some compilers have
> <atomic>, but don't implement it completely ... quite a mess ... so i'm
> rather conservative about using std::atomic (clang/libstdc++ might cause
> some problems) ... but enabling std::atomic via _LIBCPP_VERSION is
> probably safe ...
What's missing from libstdc++'s <atomic> on arm?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk