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

From: William E. Kempf (wekempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-02 12:46:08

Alexander Terekhov said:
>
> 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,
>
> Nah. atomic<> based stuff would surely be much better than what
> shared_ptr does now, I think.
>
>> and let the platform experts provide the optimal specialisations.
>
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3EC4F194.2DA8701C%40web.de
> (Subject: Re: Is this thread-safe on multi-processor Win32?)
>
> regards,
> alexander.
>
> P.S. ``Where's Bill?'' ;-)

Please, drop the adversarial tone in your posts.  It's rude at best.

I was on vacation, but I'm hardly ignoring any of this.  I had an atomic
class in Boost.Threads pre-review, but it was removed because it needed a
lot more research and effort than I had time for in that release.  I'm
trying to track the efforts you've been doing in this area, but you
scatter things so much with "see this link" type posts that it's
difficult.  If you can write a summary paper or even provide a base
implementation with thorough documentation, I'd definately be interested.

-- 
William E. Kempf