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 [1]:
>
> "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
be.