From: Larry Evans (jcampbell3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-23 09:47:43
Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> < 2 x Forward Inline >
> There's no COW semantics here. It's rather simple, really. Any
> operation that "updates" the use-count needs to be synchronized
> with respect to other readers/writers. The basic thread safety
> is pretty much the same stuff as POSIX's memory synchronization
> rules stated in 4.10/Base Definitions volume. Note that things
> like semas and pthread_refcount_t provide STRONG thread-safety
> (for themselves; from "OO" point of view, if you look at their
> interface); well, with some "exceptions"... please take a look
> at pthread_refcount_setvalue().
I'm a newbie, so this might seem a simple question: Wouldn't
weighted reference counts eliminate around half the synchronization.
This is because, AFAICT, the only time synchronization is needed is
when a smart weighted pointer releases it's pointee, but not
when it acquires a new pointee (because the reference count is
gotten from the other, or source, smart weighted pointer).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk