28 Aug
2018
28 Aug
'18
2:46 p.m.
On 08/28/18 17:34, degski via Boost wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2018 at 17:04, Andrey Semashev via Boost < boost@lists.boost.org> wrote:
... would be equivalent to std::atomic?
For that specific reason, yes. So, when your organization then eventually in 2030 (or so) moves to a compiler and STL that supports std::atomic, atomic is guaranteed to work without issue...
You can already use the current Boost.Atomic for that, as long as you don't use any extensions.