Subject: Re: [boost] c++03 library survey
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-28 14:46:02
On 08/28/18 17:34, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 17:04, Andrey Semashev via Boost <
> boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> ... would be equivalent to std::atomic?
> For that specific reason, yes. So, when your organization then eventually
> in 2030 (or so) moves to a compiler and STL that supports std::atomic,
> atomic is guaranteed to work without issue...
You can already use the current Boost.Atomic for that, as long as you
don't use any extensions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk