hi all, unfortunately only few reviews of boost.atomic arrived in time, however i count 3 YES and no NO, so i am happy to say: Helge Bahmann's boost.atomic library is ACCEPTED. since the library is an implementation of a c++11 feature for c++03, design, API and semantics are mostly fixed. many comments are going into details of the implementation, so i won't sum them all up ... iac, helge already said he wants to address the raised issues, the main points are summarized below. full implementation of the c++11 interface: the library currently only implements a subset of the c++11 library. it lacks the functional interface for integral atomic types and the ATOMIC_VAR_INIT / ATOMIC_FLAG_INIT macro. quickly consulting the latest draft that i currently have at hand the following two functions are missing as well: template <class T> T kill_dependency(T y); void atomic_signal_fence(memory_order); i encourage helge to provide a full implementation of the interface. documentation: the documentation is currently lacking a good API reference. i would therefore encourage helge to provide a doxygen-generated reference section. there were some concerns that it assumes that readers will have to be familiar with concurrency. maybe it is a good idea to point to some literature/tutorials about concurrent programming and/or to c++11 atomics. the section of real-world examples could probably include a link to shavit/herlihy's book `the art of multiprocessor programming'. it would also be helpful to have a detailed specification, if a platform/compiler combination supports a specific type natively (with run-time dispatching or specific compiler flags) ... maybe in form of a table. shared memory support/multi-module support: in multi-module applications and when using shared memory, the blocking emulation of atomics can cause troubles. for multi-module applications this can be resolved by placing the spinlock pool inside a shared library. shared- memory support could be realized by associating a (spin)lock with each blocking atomic<> instead of using a pool of spinlocks. boost should definitely provide atomics which support shared memory, either by default or by an additional implementation which is placed in the boost::interprocess namespace. i would like to thank helge for implementing boost.atomic and submitting it to boost and everyone who participated in the review. cheers, tim review manager