http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #9 from Rafał Rawicki <rafal at rawicki dot org> --- I'm sorry about my confusion of ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE and _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS meaning. In the meantime I've checked, when ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE is defined as 2 and the target platform I have problems with (XScale, that is ARMv5), shouldn't have that defined. I'm still checking why I had _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 on gcc 4.6. I would like to have the same codebase on all platforms and I wouldn't like to stop using std::exception_ptr. Jonathan Wakely wrote, that without hardware support I need libatomic.so or I'd have an undefined behaviour. I do link with libatomic.so - does that mean, I can patch this conditional out (and similar conditional in the exception_ptr.h) and use exception_ptrs? Why it was decided to remove a part of standard library instead of enforcing user to link with libatomic.so?
