From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-03-22 20:43:58
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.