Re: [boost] BOOST_NO_CXX11_ATOMIC?

Beman Dawes wrote:

We have run into a similar situation with compilers initially providing only partial implementations of language features. For example, Microsoft only supporting unconditional noexcept. The de facto policy has been to define the macro (BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC) until the feature is complete. Anyone who wants to take advantage of a partial implementation can test for the particular compiler or library version involved.

That's not very useful in this case, because many uses of <atomic> don't need atomic structs. atomic<integral> and atomic cover a lot of ground. shared_ptr, for example, only needs atomic_int_least32_t.