Proposed resolution:

Change the note in [atomics.types.operations] paragraph 20 to:

[Note: The effect of the compare-and-exchange operations is

if (*object == *expected !memcmp(object,expected,sizeof(*object)))
    *object = desired;
else
    *expected = *object;

This may result in failed comparisons for values that compare equal if the underlying type has padding bits or alternate representations of the same value. -- end note]

[ 2009-10 Santa Cruz: ]

NAD EditorialResolved. Addressed by N2992.

[ Post Summit Anthony adds: ]

Recommend NAD. C++0x does have std::atomic<float>, and both compare_exchange_weak and compare_exchange_strong are well-defined in this case. Maybe change the note in [atomics.types.operations] paragraph 20 to:

[Note: The effect of the compare-and-exchange operations is

if (!memcmp(object,expected,sizeof(*object)))
    *object = desired;
else
    *expected = *object;

This may result in failed comparisons for values that compare equal if the underlying type has padding bits or alternate representations of the same value. -- end note]

[ Summit: ]

Move to open. Blocked until concepts for atomics are addressed.

Right now, C++0x doesn't have atomic<float>. We're thinking of adding the words to support it for TR2 (note: that would be slightly post-C++0x). If we need it, we could probably add the words.

Proposed resolutions: Using atomic<FP>::compare_exchange (weak or strong) should be either:

1. ill-formed, or
2. well-defined.

I propose Option 1 for C++0x for expediency. If someone wants to argue for Option 2, they need to say what exactly they want compare_exchange to mean in this case (IIRC, C++0x doesn't even assume IEEE 754).