Section: 32.5.8.2 [atomics.types.operations] Status: CD1 Submitter: Alisdair Meredith Opened: 2008-06-03 Last modified: 2016-01-28
Priority: Not Prioritized
View other active issues in [atomics.types.operations].
View all other issues in [atomics.types.operations].
View all issues with CD1 status.
Discussion:
The atomic classes and class templates (99 [atomics.types.integral] / 99 [atomics.types.address]) have a constexpr constructor taking a value of the appropriate type for that atomic. However, neither clause provides semantics or a definition for this constructor. I'm not sure if the initialization is implied by use of constexpr keyword (which restricts the form of a constructor) but even if that is the case, I think it is worth spelling out explicitly as the inference would be far too subtle in that case.
[ San Francisco: ]
Lawrence will provide wording.
This issue is addressed in N2783.
Proposed resolution:
before the description of ...is_lock_free,
that is before 32.5.8.2 [atomics.types.operations] paragraph 4,
add the following description.
constexpr A::A(C desired);
- Effects:
- Initializes the object with the value
desired. [Note: Construction is not atomic. —end note]