This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of C++17 status.
Section: 29.7 [atomics.types.generic] Status: C++17 Submitter: Stephan T. Lavavej Opened: 2014-10-01 Last modified: 2017-08-01
View all other issues in [atomics.types.generic].
View all issues with C++17 status.
<atomic> doesn't provide counterparts for <inttypes.h>'s most useful typedefs, possibly because they're quasi-optional. We can easily fix this.
Typedefs were transitional compatibility hack. Should use _Atomic macro or template. E.g. _Atomic(int8_t). BUT _Atomic disappeared!
Detlef will look for _Atomic macro. If missing, will open issue.
[2014-11-25, Hans comments]
There is no _Atomic in C++. This is related to the much more general unanswered question of whether C++17 should reference C11, C99, or neither.
AM: I think this is still an SG1 issue; they need to deal with it before we do.
[2015-05 Lenexa, SG1 response]
Move to SG1-OK status. This seems like an easy short-term fix. We probably need a paper on C/C++ atomics compatibility to deal with _Atomic, but that's a separable issue.
SG1 hands this over to LWG for wording review
This wording is relative to N3936.
Change 29.7 [atomics.types.generic] p8 as depicted:
-8- There shall be atomic typedefs corresponding to the typedefs in the header <inttypes.h> as specified in Table 147.
Change 99 [atomics.types.operations.req], Table 147 ("atomic <inttypes.h> typedefs"), as depicted:
Table 147 — atomic <inttypes.h> typedefs Atomic typedef <inttypes.h> type …