17 May
2013
17 May
'13
9:54 a.m.
On 17 May 2013 02:46, Tim Blechmann wrote:
hmm, maybe checks for both would be needed. e.g. some compilers have <atomic>, but don't implement it completely ... quite a mess ... so i'm rather conservative about using std::atomic (clang/libstdc++ might cause some problems) ... but enabling std::atomic via _LIBCPP_VERSION is probably safe ...
What's missing from libstdc++'s <atomic> on arm?