http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005
--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 22:16:00 UTC --- (In reply to comment #7) > ,,, > In fact, the compiler implements __atomic_is_lock_free() by (paraphrased): ITYM *will* implement. :) Right now we still have PR54004. > So if a code change is desired (but it isn't required), the 2nd parameter > could > be passed as NULL to __atomic_is_lock_free(). Since a lot of code changes will happen in this area soonish (hopefully), I guess it's no actual use quoting current documentation or implementation. I'll leave it to you and bkoz to fight out whether you want his change reverted before that happens.
