8 Nov
2011
8 Nov
'11
5:29 p.m.
Tim Blechmann wrote:
atomic_is_lock_free: takes the argument `atomic-type', not `atomic-integral': this means it should also support atomic<T>. to me this sounds like atomic<T>::is_lock_free should have the same semantics, althought it is not mentioned anywhere ...
All free functions have the same semantics as the corresponding member function. They are provided as a C-compatible interface, with the intent for the C standard to adopt them.