What happened to std::atomic::value_type?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
8
down vote

favorite












According to this reference manual




For every std::atomic (whether or not specialized), std::atomic::value_type is X.




But if I try using such type I get a compilation error.



I've tried it with g++ 8.2.1:



$ g++ -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cc:6:23: error: ‘value_type’ is not a member of ‘std::atomic<int>’
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;


And with clang 6.0.1



$ clang -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc:6:23: error: no type named 'value_type' in 'std::atomic<int>'
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^


The afore mentioned reference manual specifies also says that...




specification was substantially rewritten to resolve numerous issues
in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added




The P0558R1 specification however seems not to forbid the existence of value_type.



Any idea what's going on?



Edit



A colleague of mine made me realize that P0558R1 is just a proposal.










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:09










  • The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:16














up vote
8
down vote

favorite












According to this reference manual




For every std::atomic (whether or not specialized), std::atomic::value_type is X.




But if I try using such type I get a compilation error.



I've tried it with g++ 8.2.1:



$ g++ -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cc:6:23: error: ‘value_type’ is not a member of ‘std::atomic<int>’
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;


And with clang 6.0.1



$ clang -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc:6:23: error: no type named 'value_type' in 'std::atomic<int>'
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^


The afore mentioned reference manual specifies also says that...




specification was substantially rewritten to resolve numerous issues
in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added




The P0558R1 specification however seems not to forbid the existence of value_type.



Any idea what's going on?



Edit



A colleague of mine made me realize that P0558R1 is just a proposal.










share|improve this question



















  • 1




    P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:09










  • The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:16












up vote
8
down vote

favorite









up vote
8
down vote

favorite











According to this reference manual




For every std::atomic (whether or not specialized), std::atomic::value_type is X.




But if I try using such type I get a compilation error.



I've tried it with g++ 8.2.1:



$ g++ -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cc:6:23: error: ‘value_type’ is not a member of ‘std::atomic<int>’
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;


And with clang 6.0.1



$ clang -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc:6:23: error: no type named 'value_type' in 'std::atomic<int>'
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^


The afore mentioned reference manual specifies also says that...




specification was substantially rewritten to resolve numerous issues
in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added




The P0558R1 specification however seems not to forbid the existence of value_type.



Any idea what's going on?



Edit



A colleague of mine made me realize that P0558R1 is just a proposal.










share|improve this question















According to this reference manual




For every std::atomic (whether or not specialized), std::atomic::value_type is X.




But if I try using such type I get a compilation error.



I've tried it with g++ 8.2.1:



$ g++ -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc: In function ‘int main()’:
test.cc:6:23: error: ‘value_type’ is not a member of ‘std::atomic<int>’
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;


And with clang 6.0.1



$ clang -std=c++11 test.cc 
test.cc:6:23: error: no type named 'value_type' in 'std::atomic<int>'
std::atomic<int>::value_type x = 0;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^


The afore mentioned reference manual specifies also says that...




specification was substantially rewritten to resolve numerous issues
in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added




The P0558R1 specification however seems not to forbid the existence of value_type.



Any idea what's going on?



Edit



A colleague of mine made me realize that P0558R1 is just a proposal.







c++ c++11 gcc clang






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 6 at 10:10

























asked Dec 6 at 9:52









Dacav

6,87644467




6,87644467







  • 1




    P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:09










  • The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:16












  • 1




    P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:09










  • The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
    – cpplearner
    Dec 6 at 10:16







1




1




P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
– cpplearner
Dec 6 at 10:09




P0558R1 adds value_type and difference_type, and since it's treated as a DR, it applies retroactively to C++11.
– cpplearner
Dec 6 at 10:09












The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
– cpplearner
Dec 6 at 10:16




The "in particular, member typedefs value_type and difference_type are added" part in cppreference was added by me, and I'm sad that it causes the opposite effect than I expected.
– cpplearner
Dec 6 at 10:16












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
7
down vote



accepted










You are explicitly using C++11. If we look at page 1119 of the last draft of the C++11 standard, there is no mention of value_type for std::atomic:



template <class T> struct atomic 
bool is_lock_free() const volatile;
bool is_lock_free() const;
void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const volatile;
T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const;
operator T() const volatile;
operator T() const;
T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);

atomic() = default;
constexpr atomic(T);
atomic(const atomic&) = delete;
atomic& operator=(const atomic&) = delete;
atomic& operator=(const atomic&) volatile = delete;
T operator=(T) volatile;
T operator=(T);
;


It is similarly absent in the C++14 draft.



cppreference just fails to mention "since C++17" for value_type.



Edit: It has been pointed out that the addition of value_type was in the form of a defect report and should be applied retroactively to implementations of C++11. As such, cppreference is not actually wrong, the DR just has not been implemented in the given compiler versions.






share|improve this answer






















  • I see. So cppreference is wrong?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:07










  • Just incomplete.
    – Max Langhof
    Dec 6 at 10:07










  • Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:08






  • 2




    I fixed the cppreference page :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:13










  • My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 19:17


















up vote
4
down vote













Given the nature of P0558R1, I expected it to be eventually implemented retroactively in previous standard modes as a de facto defect report and documented it as such. The paper performs major surgeries on the non-member function templates that depend on the presence of these typedefs. Similar surgeries have generally been applied retroactively by implementers. As a data point, the only major implementation known to have fully implemented P0558R1 (MSVC) does so regardless of language version.



cppreference's target is a hypothetical complete and correct implementation of each C++ standard plus all defect reports and clarifications applicable to that standard.






share|improve this answer






















    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    );
    );
    , "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53648614%2fwhat-happened-to-stdatomicxvalue-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted










    You are explicitly using C++11. If we look at page 1119 of the last draft of the C++11 standard, there is no mention of value_type for std::atomic:



    template <class T> struct atomic 
    bool is_lock_free() const volatile;
    bool is_lock_free() const;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const volatile;
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const;
    operator T() const volatile;
    operator T() const;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);

    atomic() = default;
    constexpr atomic(T);
    atomic(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) volatile = delete;
    T operator=(T) volatile;
    T operator=(T);
    ;


    It is similarly absent in the C++14 draft.



    cppreference just fails to mention "since C++17" for value_type.



    Edit: It has been pointed out that the addition of value_type was in the form of a defect report and should be applied retroactively to implementations of C++11. As such, cppreference is not actually wrong, the DR just has not been implemented in the given compiler versions.






    share|improve this answer






















    • I see. So cppreference is wrong?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Just incomplete.
      – Max Langhof
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:08






    • 2




      I fixed the cppreference page :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:13










    • My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 19:17















    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted










    You are explicitly using C++11. If we look at page 1119 of the last draft of the C++11 standard, there is no mention of value_type for std::atomic:



    template <class T> struct atomic 
    bool is_lock_free() const volatile;
    bool is_lock_free() const;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const volatile;
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const;
    operator T() const volatile;
    operator T() const;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);

    atomic() = default;
    constexpr atomic(T);
    atomic(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) volatile = delete;
    T operator=(T) volatile;
    T operator=(T);
    ;


    It is similarly absent in the C++14 draft.



    cppreference just fails to mention "since C++17" for value_type.



    Edit: It has been pointed out that the addition of value_type was in the form of a defect report and should be applied retroactively to implementations of C++11. As such, cppreference is not actually wrong, the DR just has not been implemented in the given compiler versions.






    share|improve this answer






















    • I see. So cppreference is wrong?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Just incomplete.
      – Max Langhof
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:08






    • 2




      I fixed the cppreference page :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:13










    • My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 19:17













    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    7
    down vote



    accepted






    You are explicitly using C++11. If we look at page 1119 of the last draft of the C++11 standard, there is no mention of value_type for std::atomic:



    template <class T> struct atomic 
    bool is_lock_free() const volatile;
    bool is_lock_free() const;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const volatile;
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const;
    operator T() const volatile;
    operator T() const;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);

    atomic() = default;
    constexpr atomic(T);
    atomic(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) volatile = delete;
    T operator=(T) volatile;
    T operator=(T);
    ;


    It is similarly absent in the C++14 draft.



    cppreference just fails to mention "since C++17" for value_type.



    Edit: It has been pointed out that the addition of value_type was in the form of a defect report and should be applied retroactively to implementations of C++11. As such, cppreference is not actually wrong, the DR just has not been implemented in the given compiler versions.






    share|improve this answer














    You are explicitly using C++11. If we look at page 1119 of the last draft of the C++11 standard, there is no mention of value_type for std::atomic:



    template <class T> struct atomic 
    bool is_lock_free() const volatile;
    bool is_lock_free() const;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    void store(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const volatile;
    T load(memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) const;
    operator T() const volatile;
    operator T() const;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    T exchange(T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order, memory_order);
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_weak(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst) volatile;
    bool compare_exchange_strong(T&, T, memory_order = memory_order_seq_cst);

    atomic() = default;
    constexpr atomic(T);
    atomic(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) = delete;
    atomic& operator=(const atomic&) volatile = delete;
    T operator=(T) volatile;
    T operator=(T);
    ;


    It is similarly absent in the C++14 draft.



    cppreference just fails to mention "since C++17" for value_type.



    Edit: It has been pointed out that the addition of value_type was in the form of a defect report and should be applied retroactively to implementations of C++11. As such, cppreference is not actually wrong, the DR just has not been implemented in the given compiler versions.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Dec 6 at 10:38

























    answered Dec 6 at 10:02









    Max Langhof

    8,4731335




    8,4731335











    • I see. So cppreference is wrong?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Just incomplete.
      – Max Langhof
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:08






    • 2




      I fixed the cppreference page :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:13










    • My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 19:17

















    • I see. So cppreference is wrong?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Just incomplete.
      – Max Langhof
      Dec 6 at 10:07










    • Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:08






    • 2




      I fixed the cppreference page :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 10:13










    • My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
      – Dacav
      Dec 6 at 19:17
















    I see. So cppreference is wrong?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:07




    I see. So cppreference is wrong?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:07












    Just incomplete.
    – Max Langhof
    Dec 6 at 10:07




    Just incomplete.
    – Max Langhof
    Dec 6 at 10:07












    Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:08




    Oh, perhaps cppreference just forgot to mention that value_type is available only since some later version of C++?
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:08




    2




    2




    I fixed the cppreference page :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:13




    I fixed the cppreference page :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 10:13












    My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 19:17





    My fixes in cppreference have been undone, for some reason. Fair enough :)
    – Dacav
    Dec 6 at 19:17













    up vote
    4
    down vote













    Given the nature of P0558R1, I expected it to be eventually implemented retroactively in previous standard modes as a de facto defect report and documented it as such. The paper performs major surgeries on the non-member function templates that depend on the presence of these typedefs. Similar surgeries have generally been applied retroactively by implementers. As a data point, the only major implementation known to have fully implemented P0558R1 (MSVC) does so regardless of language version.



    cppreference's target is a hypothetical complete and correct implementation of each C++ standard plus all defect reports and clarifications applicable to that standard.






    share|improve this answer


























      up vote
      4
      down vote













      Given the nature of P0558R1, I expected it to be eventually implemented retroactively in previous standard modes as a de facto defect report and documented it as such. The paper performs major surgeries on the non-member function templates that depend on the presence of these typedefs. Similar surgeries have generally been applied retroactively by implementers. As a data point, the only major implementation known to have fully implemented P0558R1 (MSVC) does so regardless of language version.



      cppreference's target is a hypothetical complete and correct implementation of each C++ standard plus all defect reports and clarifications applicable to that standard.






      share|improve this answer
























        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote









        Given the nature of P0558R1, I expected it to be eventually implemented retroactively in previous standard modes as a de facto defect report and documented it as such. The paper performs major surgeries on the non-member function templates that depend on the presence of these typedefs. Similar surgeries have generally been applied retroactively by implementers. As a data point, the only major implementation known to have fully implemented P0558R1 (MSVC) does so regardless of language version.



        cppreference's target is a hypothetical complete and correct implementation of each C++ standard plus all defect reports and clarifications applicable to that standard.






        share|improve this answer














        Given the nature of P0558R1, I expected it to be eventually implemented retroactively in previous standard modes as a de facto defect report and documented it as such. The paper performs major surgeries on the non-member function templates that depend on the presence of these typedefs. Similar surgeries have generally been applied retroactively by implementers. As a data point, the only major implementation known to have fully implemented P0558R1 (MSVC) does so regardless of language version.



        cppreference's target is a hypothetical complete and correct implementation of each C++ standard plus all defect reports and clarifications applicable to that standard.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Dec 6 at 12:35

























        answered Dec 6 at 10:24









        T.C.

        105k13214320




        105k13214320



























            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53648614%2fwhat-happened-to-stdatomicxvalue-type%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown






            Popular posts from this blog

            How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

            Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

            How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?