Re: New file uploaded to boost

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-05-23 13:18:10

--- In boost_at_y..., Iain.Hanson_at_u... wrote:
>      Hi,
>      
>      It looks to me as though atomic_t should be templatedised on 
value 
>      type. This would have the advantage of shrinking its memory 
footprint 
>      to those member fuctions used.

I don't follow you here.  Templatizing on the value type is not going 
to shrink the "memory footprint" in any way (which foot print do you 
mean, any way, data size or code size?).
      
>      What behavior would you want of a counter once it reached the 
max 
>      value for the value type. Should it wrap or latch?

A valid question, but I'm not sure it's one that should be answered.  
In other words, I think it should result in undefined behavior.
      
>      Which additional operations do you need on a counter? 
Normally, 
>      counters can have an arbitary value added or subtracted in 
addition to 
>      inc and dec, but it does not normally make sense to negate or 
>      otherwise perform bitwise operations on a counter?

The operations provided now are the "standard" set of atomic 
operations usually found on hardware architectures that provide 
atomic operations.  Addition (as opposed to inc and dec), negation, 
bitwise operations, et al, generally serve no real purpose and 
inclusion of any of these operations will eliminate the performance 
optimizations possible on many platforms that support the presented 
atomic operations.
      
Bill Kempf