On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:02 PM, Eric Fiselier <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I also don't like that we're not implementing a complete `<atomic>` in > C++03 mode. Sounds like another good reason to not support it to me. > > Fair point. The only lost functionality is initialization with an `=` sign > in it. This is more a loss of syntax than it is functionality. This is more significant than you're making it out to be, especially in C++03. There is no unambiguous initialization *other* than '=' available in C++03. =/ This makes defining correct statically initialized atomic globals very hard, and that is a pretty fundamental use case. I think that if we're going to make <atomic> work as an extension in C++03, we should make this work. If we can't, we should tell users to use stdatomic.h and C11 atomics. =/
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
