On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 <
sg10_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Resending from the right email account....
>
>
>> We looked at
>> https://wiki.edg.com/pub/Wg21summer2020/LibraryWorkingGroup/d0943r6.html
>> in the LWG telecon today. It proposes to add a __cpp_lib_atomic_compat
>> macro.
>>
>> It was pointed out that "compat" is a bit generic and could mean
>> different things in different contexts. Should we instead name the macro
>> after the header? I think that's our policy when there's no reason to do
>> otherwise. It's complicated here by the header being <stdatomic.h> and we
>> can't have a dot in a macro name.
>>
>> Should it be __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h then?
>>
>
Do we own <stdatomic.h> to put a macro in there? __cpp_lib_stdatomic_h
seems fine. Maybe also __cpp_lib_c_atomic or something to that effect?

Barry