Re: [boost] [atomic] Probable documentation issue: how do weknowatomic is safe and/or efficient?

Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] Probable documentation issue: how do weknowatomic is safe and/or efficient?
From: Rob Stewart (robertstewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-12-25 08:12:30

On Dec 25, 2013, at 7:47 AM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 25, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Rob Stewart <robertstewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Dec 24, 2013, at 2:24 PM, Andrey Semashev <andrey.semashev_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> So does this mean that Boost.Atomic is perhaps not safe after all?
>>> 
>>> No, it's perfectly safe on x86. It is also safe on ARM if /volatile:ms is  specified.
>> 
>> How do you ensure the use of /volatile:ms? Can users build Boost with /volatile:iso?
> 
> You can't, I was just answering John's question.

You used the phrase, "perfectly safe," which suggested that /volatile:ms was somehow ensured on x86.

> To be clear, yes, I agree that this needs fixing.

I wouldn't have described it as you did, but things are clear now.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)