Subject: Re: [boost] [atomic] Constraints on failure_order?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-05-05 15:28:22
On Monday 05 May 2014 20:55:08 Bjorn Reese wrote:
> According to :
> "The compare_exchange_weak/compare_exchange_strong variants taking
> four parameters differ from the three parameter variants in that they
> allow a different memory ordering constraint to be specified in case
> the operation fails."
> According to std::atomic there are some constaints on failure_order. Is
> this also the case for boost::atomic?
Yes, as boost::atomic aims to implement the standard interface as close as
possible. The requirements are not enforced with asserts yet, but they will
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk