"Roland Schwarz" <roland.schwarz@chello.at> wrote in message news:455AFA4B.7010605@chello.at...
Chris Thomasson wrote:
Here is how I define rules for my atomic<T>:
Can't use any constructors, destructors, base classes, virtual functions, or anything else that violates POD requirements.
Can't use any operators
Hmm, what is your rationale for this choice?
I would have expected that you will need the POD requirements only for type T, not for atomic<T>.
Atomic operation API must have static interface that operates on pointers to T as the destination of any operation. Usage is like:
So, why then wrap as a class at all? Why not simply templated global functions?
Humm. Good point... :^)
What I think is more important than making atomic<T> a POD, is making atomic<T> fail to compile if
1) sizeof(T) != sizeof(atomic_t) 2) alignment of T != required alignment of atomic_t
Where atomic_t is a type that is atomic on the given platform/compiler.
You could do that with meta programming. Would that be a viable option?