From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-06-03 11:38:28
"William E. Kempf" wrote:
> Not specifying the exact width
> of various types is not really something that I think most people would
> classify as "brain damaged."
That's not the only problem with MS-interlocked API. For example, for
DCSI and DCCI things, all you need is "hoist-load" and "sink-store"
barriers; a "full" acquire/release is an overkill, so to speak. Also,
for "basic" thread-safe reference counting, you really want to have
"naked" increments and either "naked" decrements [for the immutable
stuff] or decrements with "acquire-if-min"/"release-if-not-min"
memory synchronization semantics.
> Now, can you provide documentation for the above, including preconditions,
> postconditions, etc. for each method?
Do you mean refcount<>'s methods? atomic<> stuff? refs<>-thing?
A "man-pages"-like specification for plain C version of optionally
non-blocking pthread_refcount_t without parameterization (I mean
thread-safety and counter type) can be found here:
That's the only thing I have at the moment and I don't expect that
I'll have more in the coming weeks.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk