p0943 proposes a C++ header that behaves like the C one, but defines the C facilities in terms of std::atomic. So we own our stdatomic.h and WG14 owns theirs.

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 1:09 PM Barry Revzin <barry.revzin@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Jonathan Wakely via SG10 <sg10@lists.isocpp.org> 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?