http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58938
--- Comment #4 from Rafał Rawicki <rafal at rawicki dot org> ---
(In reply to Rafał Rawicki from comment #3)
> This is a regression, because a more specific _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was
> defined (but is no longer available) and now there is defined
> ATOMIC_INT_LOCK_FREE=1 (I think think the definition is correct, because
> there were available _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_{1,2,4} and no
> _GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_8).
>
> The other thing is, std::exception_ptr availability should not depend on the
> fact whether the platform has lock-free atomics or not.
s/_GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was defined/_GLIBCXX_ATOMIC_BUILTINS_4 was used/
