Why the standard make that difference It seems as both designate, in the same way, an atomic type. In the effective java book, it states The language specification guarantees that reading or writing a variable is atomic unless the variable is of type long or double [jls, 17.4.7] The definition of atomic is hazy The current wikipedia article on first nf (normal form) section atomicity actually quotes from the introductory parts above.
On some platforms the only atomic instructions are exchange instructions On such platforms, std::atomic_flag::test_and_set() can be implemented with exchange var,1 and clear() with exchange var,0, but there is no atomic instruction for reading the value So, if you want to read the value without changing it, then you need std::atomic<bool>. Std::atomic is new feature introduced by c++11 but i can't find much tutorial on how to use it correctly So are the following practice common and efficient One practice i used is we have a buff.
So, how do they differ from regular types like int,float,double,long etc., and what are. Objects of atomic types are the only c++ objects that are free from data races Note that atomic is contextual In this case, the upsert operation only needs to be atomic with respect to operations on the answers table in the database The computer can be free to do other things as long as they don't affect (or are affected by) the result of what upsert is trying to do.
OPEN
