23 Mar
                
                    2007
                
            
            
                23 Mar
                
                '07
                
            
            
            
        
    
                3:43 a.m.
            
        Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a rational for the different behavior (signature) of the atomic_count::operator++()?
This operator returns long (the new value) on Win32 and Solaris, but has no return type (void) on pthread and gcc based systems.
No reason. In the "specification" in atomic_count.hpp I see that ++a is documented as having no return value. So 'void' is correct and 'long' can be considered correct but misleading.