Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2026 10:35:20 +0000
On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 10:18 AM Jody Hagins wrote:
>
> I'd be very much opposed to adding even more junk to `std::atomic`,
> no matter how supposedly useful.
'std::atomic' should be kept in the Standard for backwards
compatibility reasons.
A new template type called 'std::lockfree' should be put into the
Standard, which will start out as a clone of 'std::atomic' and then a
few changes should be made -- most notably that it cannot use a lock.
>
> I'd be very much opposed to adding even more junk to `std::atomic`,
> no matter how supposedly useful.
'std::atomic' should be kept in the Standard for backwards
compatibility reasons.
A new template type called 'std::lockfree' should be put into the
Standard, which will start out as a clone of 'std::atomic' and then a
few changes should be made -- most notably that it cannot use a lock.
Received on 2026-01-15 10:35:35