Subject: Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC?
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-03 05:27:02
On Dec 1, 2013, at 8:06 AM, "Peter Dimov" <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Rob Stewart wrote:
>> Add feature macros and test for them. The macros can be defined when the header is fully supported or for particular compilers.
> If you're agreeing with Beman that BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC should not be defined when <atomic> is not 100% conforming, then I disagree.
I replied, in another message, that Peter and Beman made opposite statements. Peter then claimed, in reply to me, that they did not disagree. I can't read the quote above any other way, so I'm confused.
(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