C++11 atomic memory ordering - is this a correct usage of relaxed (release-consume) ordering?

C++11 atomic memory ordering - is this a correct usage of relaxed
(release-consume) ordering?

References

Reference NO 1

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15204578/c11-atomic-memory-ordering-is-this-a-correct-usage-of-relaxed-release-consu

Reference NO 2

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/11836028/c11-atomic-x86-memory-ordering

Reference NO 3

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14861822/acquire-release-versus-sequentially-consistent-memory-order

Reference NO 4

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14779518/c-memory-order-consume-kill-dependency-dependency-ordered-before-synchroniz

Reference NO 5

http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/atomic/memory_order

Reference NO 6

http://www.developerfusion.com/article/138018/memory-ordering-for-atomic-operations-in-c0x/

Reference NO 7

http://www.khronos.org/registry/cl/sdk/2.0/docs/man/xhtml/memory_order.html

Reference NO 8

#EANF#