[Bug libstdc++/54005] Use __atomic_always_lock_free in libstdc++ is_lock_free instead of __atomic_is_lock_free

[hp at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54005

--- Comment #8 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-08-14 22:16:00 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> ,,,
> In fact, the compiler implements __atomic_is_lock_free() by (paraphrased):

ITYM *will* implement. :)  Right now we still have PR54004.

> So if a code change is desired (but it isn't required), the 2nd parameter could
> be passed as NULL to __atomic_is_lock_free().

Since a lot of code changes will happen in this area soonish (hopefully), I
guess it's no actual use quoting current documentation or implementation.  I'll
leave it to you and bkoz to fight out whether you want his change reverted
before that happens.