Re: [boost] Re: shared_ptr/weak_ptr and thread-safety

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-27 10:53:06

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
>>
>> Trevor Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Why wait? With so many people contributing to boost, why not
>>> introduce a pthread_refcount_t into  into boost threads (or is there
>>> one already?), provide a default implementation equivalent to what
>>> shared_ptr does now,
>>
>> We can't; shared_ptr uses a single pthread_mutex to protects its two
>> counts. A naive pthread_mutex based pthread_refcount_t would result
>> in two mutexes, one per count.
>
> Yeah. http://google.com/groups?q=PTHREAD_REFCOUNT_NONBLOCKING

Something like that.

Are you planning to implement a "real" pthread_refcount_t for, say, Windows
and Linux/x86?