Subject: Re: [boost] Fw: [atomic] review results
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-08 12:29:35
Tim Blechmann wrote:
> atomic_is_lock_free:
> takes the argument `atomic-type', not `atomic-integral': this means it
> should
> also support atomic<T>. to me this sounds like atomic<T>::is_lock_free
> should
> have the same semantics, althought it is not mentioned anywhere ...
All free functions have the same semantics as the corresponding member
function. They are provided as a C-compatible interface, with the intent for
the C standard to adopt them.