Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC?

Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-11-30 09:00:43

Beman Dawes wrote:
> We have run into a similar situation with compilers initially providing 
> only partial implementations of language features. For example, Microsoft 
> only supporting unconditional noexcept. The de facto policy has been to 
> define the macro (BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC) until the feature is 
> complete. Anyone who wants to take advantage of a partial implementation 
> can test for the particular compiler or library version involved.

That's not very useful in this case, because many uses of <atomic> don't 
need atomic structs. atomic<integral> and atomic<T*> cover a lot of ground. 
shared_ptr, for example, only needs atomic_int_least32_t.