[boost] Re: Re: Intrusive smart pointer

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-20 14:04:18

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:004701c1e85a$e0168f00$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> > I don't particularly like having to pay for weak_ptr support now
> > (weak_ptr policy, anyone?), but I guess if I must with shared_ptr
> > anyway, a unified interface might be better.
>
> Please. Have you actually seen (with a profiler) the overhead in real
code?

I'm not concerned with the speed, which I agree is more or less
insignificant.  I'm mainly bothered by the weak_count, which adds a 50%
memory overhead.  In an application where I have to design around the
reasonable expected memory available, that's something I don't really
want or need.

Dave