Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2025 02:11:26 +0100
On 2/15/25 23:30, Jennifier Burnett via Std-Discussion wrote:
> Anyway, I'm hoping someone here can point out something that I'm missing here. Obviously I don't think this is a case where everyone is using shared_ptr wrong and we need to all be adding std::atomic_thread_fence in our code using shared_ptr to provide ordering, but rather a deficiency in the standard's wording that doesn't clearly communicate the intention.
Does section [util.sharedptr.atomic] address your needs? This was added
by P0718.
> Anyway, I'm hoping someone here can point out something that I'm missing here. Obviously I don't think this is a case where everyone is using shared_ptr wrong and we need to all be adding std::atomic_thread_fence in our code using shared_ptr to provide ordering, but rather a deficiency in the standard's wording that doesn't clearly communicate the intention.
Does section [util.sharedptr.atomic] address your needs? This was added
by P0718.
Received on 2025-02-16 01:11:30