This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.

### 880. Missing atomic exchange parameter

Section: 31 [atomics] Status: Resolved Submitter: Lawrence Crowl Opened: 2008-08-24 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [atomics].

View all issues with Resolved status.

Duplicate of: 942

Discussion:

The `atomic_exchange` and `atomic_exchange_explicit` functions seem to be inconsistently missing parameters.

[ Post Summit: ]

> Lawrence: Need to write up a list for Pete with details.

> Detlef: Should not be New, we already talked about in Concurrency group.

> Recommend Open.

[ 2009-07 Frankfurt ]

> Lawrence will handle all issues relating to atomics in a single paper.

> LWG will defer discussion on atomics until that paper appears.

> Move to Open.

[ 2009-08-17 Handled by N2925. ]

[ 2009-10 Santa Cruz: ]

> NAD Editorial Resolved. Solved by N2992.

Proposed resolution:

Add the appropriate parameters. For example,

>     bool atomic_exchange(volatile atomic_bool*, bool);
>     bool atomic_exchange_explicit(volatile atomic_bool*, bool, memory_order);