https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024
--- Comment #6 from joseph at codesourcery dot com <joseph at codesourcery dot com> --- On Thu, 14 Aug 2014, mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62024 > > --- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek <mpolacek at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > (In reply to jos...@codesourcery.com from comment #4) > > Whatever we do for __atomic_always_lock_free, note that we'll probably > > need to find some way for ATOMIC_*_LOCK_FREE (in stdatomic.h) to expand > > to something usable in #if. > > > > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/dr_458.htm > > Couldn't we just map ATOMIC_*_LOCK_FREE macros (in stdatomic.h) to > __GCC_ATOMIC_*_LOCK_FREE macros defined in c-cppbuiltin.c:cpp_atomic_builtins? > FWIW, libsupc++ does exactly that. If this approach makes sense, I can > prepare > a patch with testcase(s). Yes, I think that should work.
