p0943 proposes a C++ header that behaves like the C one, but defines the C facilities in terms of std::atomic. So we own our stdatomic.h and WG14 owns theirs.
On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:09 PM Barry Revzin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Resending from the right email account.... >> >> >>> We looked at >>> https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21summer2020/LibraryWorkingGroup/d0943r6.html >>> in the LWG telecon today. It proposes to add a __cpp_lib_atomic_compat >>> macro. >>> >>> It was pointed out that "compat" is a bit generic and could mean >>> different things in different contexts. Should we instead name the macro >>> after the header? I think that's our policy when there's no reason to do >>> otherwise. It's complicated here by the header being <stdatomic.h> and we >>> can't have a dot in a macro name. >>> >>> Should it be __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h then? >>> >> > Do we own <stdatomic.h> to put a macro in there? __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h > seems fine. Maybe also __cpp_lib_c_atomic or something to that effect? > > Barry >
-- SG10 mailing list [email protected] https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/sg10
