[config] request for BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like? thanks, tim
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
For sure, not sure why it got missed out to be honest, do you have a patch? John.
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
For sure, not sure why it got missed out to be honest, do you have a patch?
unfortunately no patch ... also not sure if it should go under config/stdlib or under config/compiler tim
On Saturday 30 June 2012 10:35:39 Tim Blechmann wrote:
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
thanks, tim
FYI, gcc 4.4 has <cstdatomic> instead of <atomic> with the same contents. I don't know about other compilers, maybe there are other similar cases. So we may be better have <boost/atomic.hpp> which defines the macro or includes the appropriate compiler header otherwise. Or perhaps this is the Boost.Atomic job.
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
thanks, tim
FYI, gcc 4.4 has <cstdatomic> instead of <atomic> with the same contents. I don't know about other compilers, maybe there are other similar cases. So we may be better have <boost/atomic.hpp> which defines the macro or includes the appropriate compiler header otherwise. Or perhaps this is the Boost.Atomic job.
one point is to have an <atomic> header, the second point is an compliant implementation of atomic<>. gcc did not support atomic<> for structs before 4.7 :/ tim
On Saturday 30 June 2012 11:04:34 Tim Blechmann wrote:
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
thanks, tim
FYI, gcc 4.4 has <cstdatomic> instead of <atomic> with the same contents. I don't know about other compilers, maybe there are other similar cases. So we may be better have <boost/atomic.hpp> which defines the macro or includes the appropriate compiler header otherwise. Or perhaps this is the Boost.Atomic job.
one point is to have an <atomic> header, the second point is an compliant implementation of atomic<>. gcc did not support atomic<> for structs before 4.7 :/
I guess, it means we need another macro then.
preparing boost.lockfree for trunk, i need a good way to figure out if the <atomic> header is available. would it be possible to add a macro to detect that? BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC or the like?
thanks, tim
FYI, gcc 4.4 has <cstdatomic> instead of <atomic> with the same contents. I don't know about other compilers, maybe there are other similar cases. So we may be better have <boost/atomic.hpp> which defines the macro or includes the appropriate compiler header otherwise. Or perhaps this is the Boost.Atomic job.
one point is to have an <atomic> header, the second point is an compliant implementation of atomic<>. gcc did not support atomic<> for structs before 4.7 :/
I guess, it means we need another macro then.
or BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_ATOMIC should be defined, unless the implementation is complete.
participants (3)
-
Andrey Semashev -
John Maddock -
Tim Blechmann