Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] Probable documentation issue: how do weknowatomic is safe and/or efficient?
From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-24 12:17:37
>> I'm sure the answer to (a) is that it is correct, but I was surprised
>> that atomic<int> relied on the volatile modifier for thread safe
>> load/stores on MSVC, I had assumed that something more than that would
>> have been required, but I know I'm out of date on this stuff!
> "volatile" was changed in VC++ 8.0 to guarantee acquire/release semantics,
> then changed back in 2012 to only do so when /volatile:ms is active, which
> it is by default, except on ARM.
So does this mean that Boost.Atomic is perhaps not safe after all?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk