Ytukyg

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.

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.

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.