From: Alexander Grund (alexander.grund_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-06-02 09:21:44
>> boost::interprocess::atomic.
>
> That name cannot be used in Boost.Atomic as it is reserved for
> Boost.Interprocess.
>
> Atomics that are lock-free can already be used for inter-process
> communication, so a hypothetical boost::interprocess::atomic would
> largely duplicate boost::atomic. However, I'm open to the idea, if it
> is significantly different from boost::atomic.
The obvious solution then is to use boost::atomic::interprocess ;-)
I do see value in having 2 different atomic types in different
namespaces as the use case is different:
The "regular" atomic usually works. Once you need interprocess
communication you use another type, not another member function.