Re: Weird mismatch between cdefs and stdatomic

On 2019-01-30 00:15, LRN wrote: > On 28.01.2019 17:02, LRN wrote: >> This[0] and this[1]. One header checks for atomic C/CXX extensions *and* for >> the presence of a C++ compiler, while the other only checks for extensions. >> The result is that the _Atomic() macro is *not* defined in cdefs.h when

Re: Weird mismatch between cdefs and stdatomic

On 28.01.2019 17:02, LRN wrote: > This[0] and this[1]. One header checks for atomic C/CXX extensions *and* for > the presence of a C++ compiler, while the other only checks for extensions. > > The result is that the _Atomic() macro is *not* defined in cdefs.h when > compiled with C++, but the stda

Weird mismatch between cdefs and stdatomic

This[0] and this[1]. One header checks for atomic C/CXX extensions *and* for the presence of a C++ compiler, while the other only checks for extensions. The result is that the _Atomic() macro is *not* defined in cdefs.h when compiled with C++, but the stdatomic.h atomic macros assume that it is, a