P0943R3 Support C atomics in C++ (Hans Boehm)

Prefer _Atomic instead of (something like) atomic_generic_type
SF F N A SA
4 5 5 2 1

Put <stdatomic.h> in Annex D as with the other C headers
SF F N A SA
1 3 6 4 0
(Don't put in Annex D).

Revise to be in terms of _Atomic, Forward to LWG for C++23.
SF F N A SA
3 11 2 0 0

(This note is out of order, it precedes the preceding note.)

Change 'atomic_generic_type' back to _Atomic
SF F N A SA
3 6 12 2 0 - Consensus

Paper proceeds without returning to SG1 if _Atomic is changed again
SF F N A SA
10 7 3 0 1 - Consensus

P0943R4 Support C atomics in C++ (Hans Boehm)

P0943R5 Support C atomics in C++ (Hans Boehm)

Telecom review of paper with author on 2020-09-25. Significant revisions requested. Detailed notes on wiki.

https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/Telecon-20200925

LWG telecon 2020-10-23 --

Wiki Notes: https://wiki.edg.com/bin/view/Wg21summer2020/D0943r6

Those in favor moving a [finished] version of P0943r6 in the November Plenary

P0943R6 Support C atomics in C++ (Hans Boehm)

Reopening at the author's request so that SG22 can review the paper.

Should _Atomic(T) and std::atomic have the same representation, size, alignment, and access protocol (e.g., lock free vs not, fence ordering, etc)?

The author will write a paper for WG14 to suggest adding the same recommended practice from P0943. Removing the SG22 tag as we don't expect to see an update for this paper and closing because this has already been applied for C++23.

Adopted 2020-11.