Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC?
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-01 06:43:45
On Nov 30, 2013, at 9:00 AM, "Peter Dimov" <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
Add feature macros and test for them. The macros can be defined when the header is fully supported or for particular compilers.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk