Issue 1464: Underspecified typedefs for atomic integral types

This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.

Section: 99 [atomics.types.integral] Status: Resolved Submitter: INCITS Opened: 2010-08-25 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [atomics.types.integral].

View all issues with Resolved status.

Discussion:

Addresses US-160

The last sentence of 99 [atomics.types.integral] p.1 says:

Table 143 shows typedefs to atomic integral classes and the corresponding <cstdint> typedefs.

That's nice, but nothing says these are supposed to be part of the implementation, and they are not listed in the synopsis.

[ Proposed resolution as of NB comment ]

Remove Table 143 — Atomics for standard typedef types.
Change 99 [atomics.types.integral] p.1 as indicated:
1 The name atomic_itype and the functions operating on it in the preceding synopsis are placeholders for a set of classes and functions. Throughout the preceding synopsis, atomic_itype should be replaced by each of the class names in Table 142 and integral should be replaced by the integral type corresponding to the class name. ~~Table 143 shows typedefs to atomic integral classes and the corresponding <cstdint> typedefs.~~

[ 2010-10-27 Daniel adds: ]

Accepting n3164 would solve this issue.

[ 2010-11 Batavia ]

Resolved by adopting n3193.

Proposed resolution:

Solved by n3193.