From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-11 10:28:34
From: "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]>
> I'm unconvinced that weak_ptr<> is useful in a MT program.
Who's trying to convince you otherwise? ;-)
> At least
> not if ANY of the pointers (shared_ptr<> or weak_ptr<>) are shared
> across thread boundaries.
More precisely, not if the last shared_ptr that owns the object may be
destroyed by a different thread.
Shared and weak pointers are typically not shared between threads; usually a
copy is passed to the other thread.
Still, a weak pointer can be used safely in a multithreaded program when (a)
the object is owned by the same thread, i.e. there exists at least one
shared_ptr that is guaranteed to be destroyed by the current thread, or (b)
when the user locks appropriately.
> A redesign might help. If the weak_ptr<>'s only functionality was
> conversion to a shared_ptr<> where you'd get a NULL shared_ptr<> if
> the object were gone, you wouldn't have the above problem. However,
> it wouldn't be efficient either (and would be danged difficult to
The usual choice. Is the user responsible for synchronization, yielding
performance, or is the implementation, yielding safety (at a price that many
would find unbearable.)
Unfortunately there is no portable "check if zero, increment only if not
zero, return the previous value" atomic operation AFAIK.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk