28 Feb
2014
28 Feb
'14
6:10 p.m.
Do you have a patch that identifies when we don't need to set that macro?
should the macro declare that the header exists, or that the implementation is complete?
That it exists and is reasonably useful. If more "advanced" uses hit bugs then that's probably more of a BOOST_WORKAROUND or possibly a new macro. HTH, John
e.g. gcc/libstdc++ did support atomic<Integral> before fully supporting atomic<>. likewise, clang/libc++ is broken, if the wrapped type is a trivially copyable class [1].
tim
[1] http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18097
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost