On 01/10/15 11:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
Hmmmm, yes. Looking at the section as a whole, is it a bug in the implementation that the built-ins only "approximately match" the C++11 requirements?
AFAIK they exactly match, so I don't know why the docs say that.
If there were an exact correspondence, it would only be necessary to point at the standard (I think it would be more helpful to mention <stdatomic.h> here than to cite a specific section number),
That's the C11 header, the C++11 header is <atomic>.
identify what C++11 names the built-ins map onto,
It's pretty straightforward, I'm not sure we need to say much: __atomic_xxx(_n)? -> atomic_xxx
and to document any implementation-defined behavior allowed by the standard and GCC extensions.
There is nothing implementation-defined in the atomics clause, just some wooly requirements like "Implementations should make atomic stores visible to atomic loads within a reasonable amount of time."
