[ 2025-12-10 Status changed: Tentatively NAD → NAD. ]

[ 2025-10-23; Reflector poll; Status changed: New → Tentatively NAD. ]

The loads are both done within functions calls, so are at worst indeterminately sequenced. So we already say what the suggested resolution wants.

Consider this snippet code:

std::atomic<int> flag = {0};
std::atomic<int> turn = {0};

if(flag + turn){}

The loads of `flag` and `turn` as the operands of `+` are unsequenced according to [intro.execution] p10.

Except where noted, evaluations of operands of individual operators and of subexpressions of individual expressions are unsequenced.

However, [atomics.order] p4 says:

There is a single total order S on all `memory_order::seq_cst` operations, including fences, that satisfies the following constraints.

Then, it says that:

First, if A and B are `memory_order::seq_cst` operations and A strongly happens before B, then A precedes B in S.

According to the first sentence, the load of `flag` and the load of `turn` do have an order in the single total order S since they are both `memory_order::seq_cst` operations. However, since they are unsequenced, the second sentence does not apply to them. So, what's the order of them in S? Is the order of them in S unspecified?

Suggested Resolution:

We may want to say the order of such operations is indeterminate in the single total order. That is, either A precedes B or B precedes A, but it is unspecified which.